delete_collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely new information: the deletion is irreversible and the contained prompts survive in the workspace but lose their collection grouping. That side-effect disclosure goes well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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 sentences, no filler, with the destructive nature front-loaded immediately after the action. The recovery advice follows naturally in the same sentence, so every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has one parameter. The description covers the action, its irreversibility, its effect on child entities, and the mitigation step; nothing an agent needs in order 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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is self-explanatory ('Collection ID to delete'). The description only echoes this with 'by ID' and adds no naming, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 ('Delete a prompt collection by ID'), which unambiguously separates it from update_collection and get_collection in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name or contrast a neighboring tool, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 gives a precondition ('reassign them first if organization matters'), which implies when to prepare before calling. However, it never states when not to use this tool or which sibling to use instead (e.g., update_collection to just regroup prompts), leaving the alternative choice to inference.

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