delete_collection_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds useful context: it clarifies the operation is a removal/unlink (not a hard delete), scopes it to 'removable collection', and gives a concrete example. It doesn't detail side effects or reversibility, but the 'unlink' framing plus the destructive annotation is reasonably transparent.

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. The core action and example are front-loaded, and the alternative routing is in the second sentence. Every word 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?

For a destructive mutation with 4 required params and no output schema, the description gives the essential context: what it removes, from what, and by what key. It also routes away from a likely alternative. It doesn't mention return values or side effects, but the example and 'unlink' framing cover the main decision an agent needs to make.

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 50%: resource and collection have descriptions, while id and childIds do not. The description adds meaning for childIds ('by child id') and collection ('removable collection'), but it doesn't explain the id parameter (presumably the parent entity id) or the exact format of childIds beyond what the schema shows. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove items'), a specific resource ('removable collection of an entity'), and a specific key ('by child id (layer 1)'). It also gives a concrete example ('unlink test cases from a test plan') and distinguishes itself from a sibling ('To unassign a person prefer write_unassign'). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (removing items from a removable collection by child id) and provides an exclusion/alternative ('To unassign a person prefer write_unassign'). This is direct guidance for an agent choosing between delete_collection_remove and write_unassign, which is the most likely confusion.

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