delete_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is non-recursive, requires the folder to be empty, and refuses unclassifiable/system/shared targets. It still does not state permission or auth requirements.

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?

Three terse sentences, all front-loaded with the destructive verb first and constraints following. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers preconditions and refusal cases well; the main gap for a destructive two-param tool is the absence of any parameter explanation, which the schema also fails to supply.

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 neither folderId nor accountId is explained in the description. The text references 'folder' and 'targets' generically, but adds no meaning about what these identifiers are, their format, or their scope.

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 (DELETE) and resource (one ordinary empty folder) with immediate scope qualifiers ('empty', 'Never recursive'). An agent can distinguish this from delete_note, create_folder, and move_note without opening any schema.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the preconditions ('empty folder', refused targets), but the description never names an alternative for the non-empty case (e.g., delete contents first or move the folder) nor states when to prefer it over siblings. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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