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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds the crucial blast-radius detail that only the folder is removed and notebooks retain sources and artifacts, plus irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'). It also discloses the return shape, which no output schema provides.

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 tight sentences: destructive scope first, then irreversibility, then sibling disambiguation and return value. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 single-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effects, irreversibility, alternatives, return value, and even the HTTP verb/path. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Collection id, from notebook_list_collections'). The description adds no format, ID-syntax, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('permanently delete a collection') and immediately scopes it to the folder only, noting notebooks survive. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools without the agent needing to open a 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: notebook_update_collection when you want to remove notebooks but keep the folder, and notebook_delete_notebook to delete a notebook itself. Both the when and the when-not are named.

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