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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds critical context: 'and all its rows' clarifies cascading deletion, and 'No undo' emphasizes irreversibility. This goes beyond annotations by specifying scope and irreversibility.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste. The critical warning 'No undo' is front-loaded and impossible to miss.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose and irreversibility. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no guidance on alternatives, it's incomplete for a destructive tool where misuse carries high risk.

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 coverage is 0% – neither 'slug' nor 'site_id' is described in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their purpose. For a 2-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess what 'slug' and 'site_id' represent.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Delete a collection' precisely states the operation. It also clarifies the cascading effect ('and all its rows'), distinguishing it from delete_collection_row. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 when to use (to remove a collection entirely) and highlights the destructive nature, but offers no explicit guidance on alternatives like delete_collection_row for removing single rows. No when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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