Delete Subfolder

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

Annotations already flag destructive/not-idempotent, but the description adds real context beyond them: media is relocated to the root, the subfolder is soft-deleted and no longer API-accessible, and specific token/permission requirements apply. The closing 'May share access, notify people or incur provider charges' is generic boilerplate that slightly muddies the otherwise precise disclosure.

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 behavior and the alternative-endpoint routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is ideal. The subsequent multi-line permission block and the trailing charges/notification sentence are verbose and push the definition well past what an agent strictly needs.

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 mutation with no output schema, it covers side effects, auth scope, and the confirm gate, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of stating whether the soft-deleted subfolder or its media can be restored (e.g., via a restore endpoint), leaving that ambiguity.

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 both required IDs plus 'confirm' are documented in the schema (confirm already states 'Must be true for the specific user-requested write'). The description only restates the confirm requirement without adding syntax or format meaning, so 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Deletes one subfolder') with the key side effect spelled out ('moves its media to the folder's root level') and the soft-delete/API-inaccessibility consequence stated. It explicitly distinguishes itself from bulk_delete_subfolders, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

States the exact single-vs-multiple condition and names the alternative ('To delete multiple subfolders and their media, use the Bulk Delete Subfolders endpoint'). It also surfaces the confirm=true prerequisite, so both routing and invocation conditions are covered.

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