delete_folder

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses destructiveness, recursive behavior, refusal condition, non-recoverability, and return format, ensuring the agent understands all implications.

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, front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE', and every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully covers return format, edge cases, and alternative actions, meeting the tool's complexity and ensuring the agent has sufficient context.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds critical context: clarifies project_id rejection, name validation reference to create_folder, and behavior of each parameter, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 tool recursively deletes a folder and its contents, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_file. It explicitly mentions scope (disk + FTS rows) and refusal condition.

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 warns against using with project_id and provides an alternative (editor). It references consistent name validation with create_folder, but lacks direct comparison to other delete tools.

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