Delete RIS folder

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: it is a soft delete (server deactivates the folder), there is no undo, it takes effect immediately, nothing is removed silently, and it runs under the desktop session login. It also surfaces the specific error code for the refusal case.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, and every clause carries information (UI mapping, refusal rule, soft-delete semantics, irreversibility, counterpart, auth context). It runs to six short clauses, which is a touch verbose, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Covers scope, precondition/refusal behavior, side effects, reversibility and execution context. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety hints, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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% and the single folderId parameter is already documented with its origin (rillsoft_folder_ris_list). The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Deletes an empty project folder ... on the Rillsoft Integration Server') with scope (logged-in client, empty folders only). It also names the sibling counterpart (rillsoft_folder_ris_create), so it is distinguishable from the other delete tools in the family.

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?

Explicit when-not condition: a folder holding subfolders or projects is refused with ris_folder_not_empty. It names the counterpart tool rillsoft_folder_ris_create and points at rillsoft_folder_ris_list as the source of folderId, giving the agent clear routing.

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