folder_rm

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'delete'. It omits that removal is likely irreversible, what happens to the folder's chats, and whether permissions are required. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for the amount of content, though the brevity edges toward under-specification for a destructive tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description would need to explain targeting and destructive effects; instead it supplies only the bare action. An agent cannot determine which folder is deleted or what else is affected.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot convey selection semantics and the baseline for no-params tools is 4. The description does not explain how the target folder is identified without parameters, which is a minor residual gap but not a schema deficiency.

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 plus resource ('Delete a chat folder'), so an agent knows this removes a folder rather than a chat, message, or contact. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like 'delete' and 'folders' by the folder noun, but it does not explicitly say how it relates to folder_new/folders.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of 'delete', 'folders', or 'folder_new', nor any prerequisite or context about which folder is targeted. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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