signavio_delete_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanently delete,' which implies destructive and irreversible behavior, but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., if the folder doesn't exist), side effects, or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste: 'Permanently delete a folder and all its contents.' It efficiently conveys the core action and scope without unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, return values, or safety warnings. For a high-stakes deletion tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly and safely.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'folderId' documented as 'The folder ID to delete.' The description does not add further semantic context beyond implying the folder must exist and contain items. Since schema coverage is high and there's only one parameter, the baseline is elevated, and the description's implication of content deletion adds slight value.

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 clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the target ('a folder and all its contents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like signavio_delete_dictionary_entry (which deletes dictionary entries) and signavio_move_folder (which moves rather than deletes). It uses specific, unambiguous language that directly communicates the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete root folders), or comparisons to siblings like signavio_move_folder for relocation instead of deletion. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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