delete_folder

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

Without annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the multi-step deletion process, case-insensitive substring matching, refusal of non-empty folders, and the destructive action. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the operation is irreversible once confirmed, though 'delete' implies destruction.

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?

The description is well-structured with a short overview sentence, critical behavioral notes, and Args section. It's concise enough (4 lines + args) but front-loads the most important info. Minor redundancy: 'Only one folder can be deleted per call' could be folded into the flow description.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the multi-step flow, parameter meanings, and refusal conditions. The presence of an output schema slightly reduces the need to describe return values. A small gap: it doesn't mention what success/failure looks like or error handling, but the flow explanation is sufficient for safe usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: 'path' (required substring), 'search_path' (default to /), 'selection' (disambiguation when multiple matches), and 'confirm' (safeguard). It adds practical examples (e.g., '/User1/Folder 1' or 'Folder 1') that the schema doesn't provide.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a folder matched by path substring. It differentiates from folder operations like add_folder, move_folder, and list_folder by specifying 'delete' and safe behavior (refuses to delete non-empty folders). However, it could be more explicit about distinguishing from other delete tools like delete_lab or delete_node.

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 explicitly outlines the search-select-confirm flow, when deletion is refused (contents exist), and limits (only one folder per call). It provides clear step-by-step guidance on how to use the tool safely, including prerequisites (search_path) and confirmation parameter usage.

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