Delete a folder

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior the annotations cannot express: contained items are moved to root and child folders are moved to this folder's parent, meaning the delete is not a cascading tree removal. It does not state whether the operation is recoverable or what confirmation is required.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines: purpose, required scope, endpoint, then the cascade semantics that matter most. The scope requirement is stated twice ('Required API key scope: accounts:write' and 'Requires `accounts:write` regardless of type'), which is slightly redundant but the second mention adds the 'regardless of type' nuance.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what is deleted, the credential scope, the endpoint, and the effect on contained items and subfolders. Only the return value / post-delete response behavior is unaddressed, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and there is only one required parameter, so the baseline is 3. The endpoint line implies the single `id` is the folder identifier rather than an account or campaign id, which is a small addition, but the schema already documents `id` as a path parameter.

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 leads with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a folder') and confirms the endpoint DELETE /folders/{id}. The folder noun distinguishes it from the sibling delete_proxy, delete_campaign and delete_account tools, though it never names those alternatives 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?

It states a prerequisite ('Requires accounts:write regardless of type'), which tells the agent what credentials are needed before calling. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to update_folder or list_folders as alternatives for non-destructive workflows.

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