Delete Folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a critical side effect (entities left unfiled) which is valuable, but it does not mention reversibility, permission requirements, or any other side effects. The description adds useful context but is not exhaustive.

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 concise: two sentences, the first delivering the core action and the second adding the crucial nuance about entity behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words.

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 delete operation with 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the most important contextual detail—what happens to contained entities. It does not explain return values (likely covered by output schema) or error cases, but given the simplicity of the action, this is adequate. It could benefit from noting whether the folder must exist or any deletion restrictions, but the core behavior is clear.

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 all 4 parameters, each described as numeric IDs. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships or usage constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing it.

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 (delete) and resource (folder from a workspace), and uniquely distinguishes itself from other folder operations like update_folder or move_entities_to_folder by specifying that contained entities are not deleted but left unfiled. This is a specific and non-tautological purpose.

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 implies a use case (deleting a folder while preserving its contents) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like move_entities_to_folder or update_folder. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some inference to the agent.

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