folders_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: destructive/recoverable semantics, the project_id refusal returning isError with the race-condition rationale, git-backup caveat, and no auth/rate limits.

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-loads 'DESTRUCTIVE' and packs the recursion, refusal, recovery, and return-value facts into a tight paragraph with no filler sentences.

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 2-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies every needed fact: scope, refusal condition, irreversibility, backup caveat, and the return shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining WHY project_id is rejected (file-watcher race) and cross-references the name validation rule from folders_create, exceeding what the schema states.

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 ('recursively delete a folder under the KB AND every file inside it') with explicit scope (disk + FTS rows), which clearly separates it from folders_list, folders_create, and single-file files_delete.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion (refuses when project_id is supplied) plus the alternative path ('remove project content via your editor instead'), and notes the recursive scope that selects this over single-file deletion.

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