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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the cascade ('et ses résultats'), the prerequisite that any claim must be released first, and the optimistic-concurrency requirement that the current version must be supplied. It still omits what happens on a version mismatch (error vs. silent overwrite) and whether permission scoping applies.

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 destructive action and its blast radius, then preconditions. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries operational information.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers permanence, cascade scope, claim-release prerequisite, and version requirement. Only edge behavior on failure and any permission requirements are left unstated.

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 schema documents neither parameter. The description partially compensates by clarifying that 'version' must be the current version of the collection, implying a stale-write guard, but 'id' is left entirely unelaborated beyond the tool's subject.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Supprimer définitivement une collecte') plus the cascade scope ('et ses résultats'), which distinguishes it from siblings like update_collection or delete_record. The only weakness is that it is written in French while the tool name and all sibling names are English, which adds a small parsing cost for an agent matching intent to tool.

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?

It states real preconditions ('Annuler préalablement toute prise en charge', 'Version courante requise'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, contrast this with non-destructive alternatives such as update_collection, set_collection_state, or archive-style siblings, so the when-not-to-use decision is left implicit.

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