LightCMS

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the empty-folder constraint (precondition) and implied failure mode for non-empty targets, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the operation, second states the critical constraint. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-param destructive tool. Annotations cover safety/destructive traits; description covers the primary business logic constraint (empty-only). No output schema exists to document.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter. The description does not reference parameters, but the schema is self-documenting, meeting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Specific verb (Delete) + resource (folder) with clear scope constraint (empty only). The empty-folder restriction distinguishes it from broader delete operations like delete_content or delete_collection, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit 'when' (empty folder) and 'when-not' (contains content/subfolders) guidance. Missing specific alternative tool recommendations for handling non-empty folders, but the constraint is clearly actionable.

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