delete_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether contained renders/uploads/templates are cascaded or orphaned, or what permissions are required — all material unknowns for a destructive folder 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 three words long and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. As in the calibration case of a bare 'Process' description, extreme brevity here reflects missing content, not efficient editing.

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 output schema, the description should at minimum address permanence, cascade behavior on folder contents, and any permission prerequisites. Annotations cover the destructive flag, but the behavioral and routing gaps leave an agent without enough to invoke this safely or prefer it over siblings.

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 at 100% schema description coverage ('The folder ID to delete'), the schema fully documents the input, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for obtaining folder_id, but nothing is missing that the schema does not already supply.

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 'Delete a folder' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, conveying no information beyond them. It does not distinguish this tool from the several other delete_* siblings (delete_upload, delete_font, delete_render, delete_template), which is the only thing an agent actually needs to differentiate here.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus delete_template, delete_upload, or the other deletion siblings, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. that a folder must be empty or that contents are removed with it). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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