Remove a collection folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses that the previous state is snapshotted before the write and that revert is possible via nuvio_undo. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations. The only minor gap is not explaining what happens to the folder's contents or whether the removal is permanent if not undone, but the snapshot mention covers the key safety behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core action is stated first, and the safety net (snapshot/undo) is added in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a description adding the snapshot/undo behavior, the definition is largely complete. There is no output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values for a simple removal action. The only missing context is what the preview looks like when confirm is false, but the schema description for confirm already mentions that a preview is returned. Overall, an agent has enough to call this tool correctly.

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 only 25% (only the 'confirm' parameter has a description). The description does not explain the parameters beyond the schema. However, the parameter names (collection_id, folder_id, profile_id, confirm) are fairly self-explanatory, and the confirm parameter's schema description already explains its role. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the low coverage but self-evident names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a folder from a collection.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvio_add_collection_folder and nuvio_update_collection_folder. It could be slightly more explicit about the scope (e.g., that it removes a folder within a collection, not the collection itself), but the title and description together are unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning that the previous state is snapshotted and revert is possible with nuvio_undo, which hints at when this tool is appropriate (destructive removal with undo safety). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nuvio_delete_collection or nuvio_remove_addon. The mention of nuvio_undo is a useful pointer but not a full usage guideline.

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