删除文件夹

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the irreversible nature ('删除后不可恢复'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also notes a return result, though vague.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, but it repeats parameter information already in the schema, which is mildly redundant. Still, every sentence serves a purpose, including the irreversibility warning.

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 simple delete tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the description is adequate. It covers the action, irreversibility, and indicates a return value, though it omits details like recursive deletion or permissions.

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 provides full 100% description coverage for both folderId and response_format, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the folderId description without adding new semantics.

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 '删除云盘中的文件夹' (delete folder in cloud drive), specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like classin_delete_file and classin_create_folder by targeting folders specifically.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided beyond the basic action; usage is implied by the tool name and description. It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools such as classin_delete_file.

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