Permanently delete a collection. Items inside are not deleted — they stay in the Grabblist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The collection ID to delete | |
| reason | No | Why this change was made (shown to user in change history) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds valuable context: the deletion is permanent and items within the collection are unaffected. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies side effects.
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 that conveys both the action and the key exception. No wasted words.
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 two-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers purpose, destructive nature, and the non-destructive effect on items, which is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific action ('Permanently delete a collection') with a clear resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_item and remove_from_collection by clarifying that items inside are not deleted, which is a key scoping detail.
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 implies usage context by explaining that items stay in the Grabblist, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with no obvious duplicates. The only potential overlap is between update_item and update_price, but the descriptions clarify that update_price is specifically for manual price corrections with history tracking.
All tool names follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., add_item, create_collection, get_item_graph). Slight deviations like add_to_collection and ping are still predictable and conventional.
With 23 tools, the server sits in the heavy range (16-25). While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count is higher than typical for a shopping-save app and may feel overwhelming, though not excessive.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for items and collections, relations, history, activity, and utilities. Minor gaps exist—such as no dedicated 'move item between collections' tool—but workarounds are possible using existing tools.
