outlook_delete_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds one genuine behavioral rule beyond that (name-based rejection of well-known folders), but it is silent on the important destructive question: whether deleting a folder cascades to its messages and child folders, and what error/permission conditions look like.

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 sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the constraint trailing for emphasis. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and one guardrail but leaves gaps an agent would want: how to discover a valid folder_id and whether folder contents are destroyed along with the folder.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the load for folder_id. 'By ID' confirms it takes an identifier, but does not say where that ID comes from (outlook_list_folders) or whether it accepts display names or well-known names — the only hint is that well-known names are rejected.

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+resource (delete a mail folder) plus the scope restriction that it must be user-created, which is what separates it from folder-creation/rename siblings and from message-level deletes like outlook_delete_message. An agent can tell exactly what class of object this operates on without opening the schema.

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 'refuses well-known folders (inbox, sentitems)' clause gives an explicit when-not condition, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g. use outlook_delete_inbox_override or outlook_move_message for well-known folder contents) or saying how to obtain a valid folder_id via outlook_list_folders.

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