delete_folder

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: the operation is irreversible, limited to IMAP, and requires an empty folder. It also explicitly forbids system folders. This directly enhances transparency and aligns with the destructiveHint true flag.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: three sentences, each adding necessary information. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive folder deletion tool, the description covers all essential context: prerequisites (empty folder), restrictions (system folders), and consequences (irreversible). Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions and the destructiveHint annotation, the tool is fully specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'path' and 'confirmed'. The description does not add further detail about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Delete an empty mailbox folder via IMAP'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_folder, rename_folder, and empty_folder by specifying the empty-folder requirement and the IMAP context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('The folder must contain no messages') and when not to use it ('Do NOT delete system folders'). It also provides actionable prerequisites ('move or trash all messages first'), which serves as clear usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.