delete_collection

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses real side effects: shares are also removed, drawings survive but become unorganized, and trash is undeletable. That is genuinely useful context for a destructive operation, though reversibility and permission requirements remain unstated.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by consequences and the key constraint. No filler; each clause carries distinct 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, cascade effects, and a failure case. It could say more about permissions or whether deletion is reversible, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about collectionId. The description adds no param detail either, but the single parameter's name and 'owned collection' framing make its meaning largely self-evident, so this lands at an adequate baseline rather than a serious gap.

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 an owned collection') and clarifies scope ('and its shares'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from delete_drawing among siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous, so an agent will not confuse them.

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 constraint 'Trash cannot be deleted' tells the agent one case where this fails, and 'owned' implies an ownership prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing (e.g., toward remove-from-collection style siblings), so guidance is only implied.

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