acc_delete_folder

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by explaining the soft-delete behavior (hidden, restorable) and the need for user confirmation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation hints.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, from the soft-delete clarification to the restore pointer and user-confirmation requirement.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, has an output schema, and annotations indicate destructive behavior. The description covers the key contextual points: soft delete, restoration path, and user confirmation, making it fully complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100% for both parameters (folder_id and project_id), so the schema itself fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, staying at the baseline expected when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'folder in ACC Docs', and specifies it is a soft delete that hides the folder and can be restored. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool acc_restore_folder and other folder operations.

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 says to confirm with the user first and mentions that the folder can be restored via acc_restore_folder, providing clear usage context and an alternative. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and when to rely on the restore mechanism.

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