notes_delete_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most essential trait with '(destructive)'. Yet it stops there: it never states whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, whether the operation cascades to notes inside the folder, or how the API signals success or failure. For a destructive tool, the fate of contained notes is the single most consequential unknown.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded in the first sentence, the safety requirements come second, and the optional targeting semantics last. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical information appears first.

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 6-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. The critical missing context is what happens to the notes contained in the folder: are they deleted, moved, or does the operation fail? Permanence/recoverability is also undisclosed. An agent cannot fully predict the consequences of invoking this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it meaningfully does: 'Can be targeted by folder_id or folder_name (+ account scope)' explains the either/or relationship between the two targeting params and clarifies that account_id/account_name serve as scoping context. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it leaves unspecified what happens if both folder_id and folder_name are supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Delete a folder,' and adds the '(destructive)' warning. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling notes_delete_note, since the resource is named explicitly, so an agent can tell the two delete operations apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives preconditions — 'Requires confirm=true and reason' — which is a form of usage guidance, and the tool's purpose is narrow enough that an agent can infer it is the right choice for removing folders. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives discussion, no note about when folder_name vs folder_id targeting is preferable, and no warning about preconditions like folder emptiness.

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