delete_folder

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds essential behavior beyond these: the deletion is soft/archival, recursive across nested folders and test cases, and reversible through the UI. That is concrete, useful information that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 short sentences front-load the essential behavior ('soft delete', 'all its contents', 'recursive', 'restorable'). Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple destructive tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the operation's scope, side effects, and reversibility. There is nothing critical missing for an agent to safely decide whether to invoke this tool.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to folderId by explaining that identifying that folder also archives all nested folders and test cases, not just the folder itself. This reinforces the subtree-wide implication of the single parameter.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Soft delete (archive) a folder') and immediately clarifies scope ('all its contents'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as delete_test_case, delete_test_collection, and update_folder by emphasizing recursive archiving of nested folders and test cases.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a folder and all nested content should be archived, and notes that restoration is only via the UI. It does not explicitly say 'don't use this if you want permanent deletion' or point to a non-recursive alternative, but the recursive wording implies this.

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