Forget a woven folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what is destroyed (the index) and what is explicitly preserved (the folder's files), which softens the otherwise alarming destructive hint. It does not discuss reversibility or how the index can be rebuilt.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical scope limitation. No filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. The only real gap is behavior on non-woven folders and whether the index can be regenerated, which matters given the destructive hint.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'path' as the woven folder. The description adds no format, path-shape, or example beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — deleting a folder's index — and immediately disambiguates 'forget' from file deletion with 'the folder's own files are not touched.' It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like weave_folder or weave_list.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools. The intended usage (removing a folder from the index) is only inferable from the purpose sentence.

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