Coda Delete Folder

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true, so the mutation profile is covered; the description still earns credit by disclosing the cascading side effect that annotations cannot express — child docs "may be moved to the root level or deleted depending on Coda's behavior." The honest admission of uncertainty is useful, though it does not resolve what actually happens to the contents, which is exactly the risk an agent needs to price in.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the safeguard, then the side-effect caveat — a sensible order. "Delete a folder" and "Permanently removes the folder" restate each other slightly, but there is little waste overall.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the return payload, the recommended pre-check, and the destructive ripple effect. The only remaining gap is that the fate of contained docs is left as "depends on Coda's behavior," but the agent is at least warned of the 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% with a single required parameter already documented as "The folder ID to delete," so the schema does the full job. The description only echoes that a folder_id comes back; 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 and resource ("Delete a folder from the Coda workspace") and even names the return payload ("confirmation with folder_id"). The resource "folder" cleanly separates it from the many other delete siblings (delete_doc, delete_page, delete_row, delete_permission).

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 routes the agent through a precondition ("Verify the folder with coda_get_folder before deleting"), which names a sibling and the condition for using it. It stops short of stating when NOT to delete or what alternatives exist for archiving/moving instead, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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