Lightroom Classic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., removing photos from the collection first), or returns confirmation data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description should at least warn about irreversibility or mention prerequisites. It's minimally adequate but lacks critical context for safe operation.

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?

The description mentions 'by its ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'collection_id' in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details about the parameter. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID) but doesn't explain format, validation, or where to find the ID (e.g., from 'list_collections'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a collection by its ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_collection' and 'remove_from_collection' by focusing on permanent deletion rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is a destructive operation, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the collection must be empty), compare it to similar tools like 'delete_snapshot', or warn about irreversible consequences. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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