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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact blast radius (saved versions and source configuration are destroyed) and what survives (original stream posts and follows), plus the ownership constraint. It stops short of mentioning permissions or irreversibility confirmation, so not a full 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive scope, followed by preservation guarantees and then routing to alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the definition covers the action, the destruction boundary, the preservation boundary, ownership, and alternative tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or avoid misusing it is missing.

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% and both parameters point at their upstream list tools (list_collections, list_stream_decks), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the implicit ownership constraint on the collection and no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (delete), resource (custom collection), ownership scope (owned by the signed-in user), and precisely what is removed (saved versions, source configuration) versus preserved (original stream posts and follows). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (delete_stream_deck, update_collection), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use delete_stream_deck to remove the whole deck, and update_collection to change sources or filters. Both the alternative tools and the conditions that select them are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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