Delete Folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete'), specifies failure conditions ('deletion fails if the folder has children'), and explains the cascade parameter's effect on subfolders/documents/artifacts. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or reversibility, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 core purpose, followed by parameter-specific guidance. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition, efficiently covering both the action and critical behavioral 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 destructive tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete—it explains the core operation, failure conditions, and key parameter. It doesn't cover return values or error formats, but given the straightforward nature of a delete operation, this is a minor gap.

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 fully compensates by explaining the 'cascade' parameter's semantics in detail (what happens when true/false). It doesn't explain 'graph_id' or 'folder_id', but given the tool's name and context, their purpose is reasonably inferable, and the cascade explanation adds significant value beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Delete a folder from the workspace') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_graph' or 'delete_block' by specifying the resource type. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context about when to use cascade=true vs. not (when folder has children), but doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_graph' or 'move_folder'. It gives operational guidance but lacks sibling differentiation.

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