ghl_project_delete_folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value beyond them: the cascade to nested lists, the exact response shape `{ "success": true }` with no `id`, the HTTP endpoint/version, and the required OAuth scope. Minor internal tension: the preamble says cascades are undocumented while the description asserts nested lists are deleted.

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 actual purpose is buried after a long shared preamble, much of which is irrelevant to a delete (RBAC-filtered batch-get, lexorank `position`, recurring-task fields, task search `updatedAt` sync). Those sentences do not earn their place for this tool and delay the front-loaded action.

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, two-parameter endpoint with annotations declaring destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies endpoint, scope, cascade, and return value, which is enough to call it correctly. The only residual gap is the undefined downstream effect on tasks inside the deleted lists.

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 both folderId and the channel-dependent locationId fully documented in the schema itself. The description only implies folderId via the endpoint path and adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline of 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 Folder") and immediately scopes the blast radius: "Deletes a folder and its nested lists." An agent can distinguish this from ghl_project_delete_list and ghl_project_delete_folder_user based on the cascade statement.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the hierarchy preamble (spaces -> folders -> lists -> tasks), but there is no explicit guidance on when to delete a folder versus deleting it via another path, nor any stated prerequisite such as ownership or the effect on tasks inside descendant lists. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer.

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