Bulk Delete Subfolders

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, non-idempotent, openWorld, and non-readOnly, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: media is soft-deleted and restorable from trash by an owner/manager until purged, and it requires confirm=true. The triple-repeated expiring-access-token paragraph is redundant boilerplate, slightly diluting the behavioral clarity.

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 core opening is well front-loaded, but the permissions block is bloated and repeats the 'expiring access token with all:delegate_to_contact_permissions' paragraph three times nearly verbatim. That redundancy adds significant noise to an otherwise short behavioral statement.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers restore behavior, prerequisites, and alternatives, which is sufficient. It could clarify the async job/return behavior (e.g., how to check status via get_job_status), but is otherwise complete.

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%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, folder_id, hashed_ids, and payload_file. The description adds the confirm=true requirement and mentions folder_id/update authorization, but offers no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Deletes multiple subfolders asynchronously'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_subfolder by contrasting behavior: this one soft-deletes contained media, while delete_subfolder moves it to root.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (Delete Subfolder endpoint) and the condition that selects it ('To keep the media'). It also documents permission requirements and the confirm=true prerequisite, so an agent knows when and how it may be used.

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