dissolve_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the removal is reversible (an 'undo' sibling exists but is not referenced), whether it works on folders containing apps only or also empty ones, or whether it can fail. 'Where it was' is also ambiguous — parent folder, original page, or original position.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally it is efficient and readable.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no annotations and one wholly undocumented parameter; the only thing the description adds is the destination of the apps. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but irreversibility, idempotency, and folder_id sourcing are all missing.

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 0% and the single parameter folder_id has no title or documentation beyond its name. The description does not mention folder_id at all, its expected format, or how to obtain one (e.g., by name lookup), so nothing compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a folder') plus the key side effect (its apps go back to where the folder was), which differentiates it from remove_empty and file_into_folders. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it must be distinguished from, so an agent still has to infer that this is the non-empty case.

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 clause 'putting its apps where it was' implies the use case (unmake a folder without losing its contents), which is real but indirect guidance. It never states when to prefer this over remove_empty, file_into_folders, or plain move, and offers no preconditions or exclusions.

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