eda_dmt_folder_delete_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete folder' and returns a boolean, but does not mention that deletion is irreversible, may fail if the folder contains items, requires specific permissions, or what happens on non-existent folders. For a destructive operation, 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?

The description is extremely brief—a single signature line and a two-word Chinese phrase plus a return explanation. It is front-loaded with the signature and contains no redundant text. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than being well-structured.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to disclose side effects, preconditions, error behavior, or any safety information. An agent cannot assess the consequences of calling this tool beyond knowing it returns a boolean. The simplicity of the operation does not excuse the lack of context.

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 description includes the method signature 'deleteFolder(teamUuid: string, folderUuid: string)', which names and types both parameters. The input schema only defines an opaque 'args' array and a windowId, so the description provides the essential parameter meaning that the schema lacks. It adds value beyond the schema.

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 action '删除文件夹' (delete folder) and provides the method signature with resource (folder) and verb (delete). It is distinct from sibling tools that create, modify, move, or get folder info. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., folder must be empty), when deletion is appropriate, or any conditions that should lead an agent to choose this over other folder operations. The description simply states the operation without context.

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