Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions the tool interfaces with GraphQL API and returns a folder id on success or ToolError on failure, which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., impact on contained documents), or rate limits, which are essential for a destructive operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Additional sentences provide implementation details and return values without redundancy. However, the inclusion of ':param' and ':returns:' markers adds minor structural noise, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose, parameter semantics, and return outcomes, but lacks behavioral details like safety warnings or error specifics. The output schema likely handles return values, but more context on usage and risks would improve completeness for a deletion tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'id_or_path' is a 'unique identifier or path for the folder' and notes that 'If not provided, an error will be returned,' clarifying its necessity and format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could specify path syntax or examples for a higher score.

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 action ('Deletes a folder') and resource ('in the content repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_folder' and 'update_folder' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_document_version' or 'delete_version_series', which prevents a perfect score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., folder must be empty), when not to use it (e.g., for documents instead of folders), or explicit alternatives among siblings like 'unfile_document' for different operations. This leaves the agent without contextual decision-making cues.

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