Delete Folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the cascading destruction of contained media, the required permission scopes, the confirm=true gate, and generic side-effect warnings (shares access, notifications, charges). It does not say whether deletion is recoverable, which is the one notable behavioral gap.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the auth requirements are cleanly separated into a headed block. The three enumerated token variants are somewhat verbose for the value they add, but each sentence carries operative information.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is removed (folder plus media), auth prerequisites, and the confirm gate. The main missing piece is whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, which matters given siblings like restore_deleted_media and list_deleted_media.

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 id, account and confirm are already documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the confirm=true requirement and adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb (Deletes) and resource (folder), and adds the critical scope detail that the media inside it goes too. It also clarifies the 'folder' naming versus the legacy 'project' term, which helps disambiguate from siblings like delete_subfolder and delete_folder_sharing.

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?

It gives useful preconditions (required token permissions, confirm=true, delegate_to_contact_permissions tokens) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as delete_subfolder, bulk_delete_subfolders, or archive/restore paths. Usage context is implied by the destructive framing rather than spelled out.

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