modx_delete_media_folder

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait — that the delete is cascading and takes the folder's contents with it — but says nothing about required permissions, irreversibility/no-undo, or behavior on non-empty or missing folders.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive scope, followed by compact parameter glosses. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 folder operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the cascade and both parameters but leaves out permission requirements, irreversibility, and any indication of the result. Adequate to call correctly, thin for calling safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description is the only source of meaning, and it does define both parameters: `source` accepts an id or name, and `path` is the folder path within that source. However, it omits path formatting details (leading slash, root-relative vs absolute, case sensitivity), so the compensation is only partial for a destructive operation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a folder') scoped to 'inside a media source', and the parenthetical '(and its contents)' clarifies the cascading scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like modx_delete_media_file and modx_delete_media_source by naming the folder resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as modx_delete_media_source (which would remove an entire source) or modx_delete_media_file. The reader must infer the selection criteria from the tool name and resource alone.

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