folders_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (DELETE), prerequisites, and that folder contents are unfoldered, not deleted. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the name, but misses details like reversibility or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides essential information (action, prerequisites, consequence on contents). No fluff.

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 a destructive tool with 5 required params and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks detail on return values, error handling, pre-deletion checks, or idempotency. It only covers basic behavior.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only clarifies the 'confirm' parameter (must be true) but ignores other required params (accountId, containerId, workspaceId, folderId), leaving their purpose implicit.

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 'Delete a GTM folder', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from read or update tools but does not explicitly compare to other folder deletion tools among siblings.

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 provides prerequisites (GTM_MCP_ENABLE_DELETES=true, confirm=true) and notes that contents are unfoldered, implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like folders_move_entities.

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