delete_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It thoroughly discloses irreversibility ("THIS ACTION CANNOT BE UNDONE"), recursive destruction ("ENTIRE subtree is destroyed"), the specific contents affected (child folders, projects, tasks), and the required user confirmation. This is exemplary for a destructive operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence carries important information: the action, the irreversibility, the full scope of destruction, and the mandatory confirmation step. Minor redundancy exists between "permanently" and "CANNOT BE UNDONE," but it serves as emphasis for a destructive tool.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what will be deleted, the irreversible nature, the cascade scope, and the required pre-call confirmation. There are no significant missing warnings or instructions that an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter `id` is already documented as "The folder's id.primaryKey." The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Permanently and recursively delete an OmniFocus folder." It clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete tools by naming the exact resource type (folder) and the cascade effect. An agent can tell this apart from delete_project and delete_task without opening schemas.

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 implies usage by stating that it deletes an OmniFocus folder, but it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when to choose this over delete_project or delete_task. It does provide a strong precondition: "Before calling this tool you MUST ask the user to explicitly confirm." This is a usage condition, but not a full when-to-use vs alternatives explanation.

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