folder_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that both the folder and its messages are deleted, and it calls out the authentication requirement. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the destructive and privileged nature of the operation, though it does not mention irreversibility (implied by 'delete').

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?

A single sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and prerequisites without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 straightforward delete tool with three fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is deleted, the target (alias), and the required credentials, giving an agent all necessary context to use the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (folder_id as path, alias_username format, alias_password source). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage means the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the exact resource (folder and its messages) plus the target context (an alias via IMAP). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like folder_create, folder_get, and folder_update, which have different purposes.

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 states the key prerequisite ('Requires alias credentials'), making clear when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the tool's name and destructive scope provide strong contextual guidance, especially alongside sibling folder tools.

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