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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: irreversibility, site-ownership requirement, and the full set of things destroyed (records plus access-mode and schema settings).

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff, no repetition of schema details.

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, irreversible operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, and the ownership scope. It does not mention idempotent behavior or error cases, but those are not critical for a caller deciding whether to invoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents site_id, collection, and workspace_id. The description adds some meaning around collection-level scope and ownership, but not per-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 an entire collection,' and spells out exactly what that includes: records, access-mode settings, and schema settings. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_site_record and delete_site.

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?

Clear contextual guidance: it is the tool for deleting a whole collection rather than a single record, and it is scoped to a site you own. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the description.

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