delete_group_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a clearly destructive operation. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether contained files are also removed, what permissions are needed, or what happens on a missing folder_id.

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?

One sentence plus two parameter lines, front-loading the action and resource with no filler. The docstring-style ':param' formatting is mechanical but harmless.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose irreversibility, permission needs, and side effects. None of that appears, leaving the agent unable to judge risk or outcomes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented as 群号 and 群文件夹 ID. The description only repeats those same two lines, adding no format examples or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (删除) and resource (QQ 群文件夹), plus the underlying NapCat OneBot 11 action name, so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It is distinguishable from the sibling delete_group_file (file vs folder), though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus delete_group_file or other folder operations, and no prerequisites (e.g. admin rights or folder being empty). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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