delete_collection

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

Annotations already declare destructive/readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new context: the underlying ICollectionContainer::DestroyCollection API and the concrete already_absent=True contract when the target is missing. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but the idempotent-return concretization goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a garbled fragment ('...already_absent=True). "Private", or "Shared".') that appears to be a truncated sentence, and the Returns dump sits awkwardly at the end. Information is useful but the structure is not clean.

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?

With no output schema declared, the inline Returns field list compensates by naming all return fields, and idempotency plus the absent case are covered. Missing only edge details such as whether the collection must be empty or what share-type permissions apply.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description's share_type fragment ('"Private", or "Shared"') partially echoes the schema and actually omits the default value 'Local', adding no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 and resource ('Destroys a Content Browser collection') and explicitly frames it as the inverse of create_collection, letting an agent distinguish it from sibling create_collection/add_asset_to_collection without opening 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?

The 'inverse of create_collection' framing implies when this is appropriate, and the already-absent behavior clarifies the idempotent case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative beyond the inverse hint.

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