Remove folder recursively

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and removes everything inside the folder. It also advises a safe inspection step, giving the agent a clear behavioral model without relying solely on the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second warns of irreversibility and instructs the precondition. Every word earns its place, and the critical warning is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an existing destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the operation, its scope, its irreversibility, and the safe invocation procedure. There are no missing details that would cause incorrect use.

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 must compensate for the single 'id' parameter. It does not explicitly state that 'id' is the folder ID, but the wording 'Remove a folder' strongly implies it. This adds enough meaning beyond the raw schema (which only defines a string) to guide correct invocation, though an explicit mapping would be clearer.

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 states a specific verb (Remove) and resource ('a folder and everything inside it'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling bookmarks_remove (single bookmark removal). It unambiguously conveys the recursive scope of the operation.

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 tells the agent when to call (remove a folder recursively) and provides a precondition: inspect the subtree with bookmarks_get_tree and get user approval first. This is direct, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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