nexus_discard_collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value beyond these: it clarifies the destruction is a soft-delete (not permanent), discloses the ownership prerequisite ('must own it'), and states the return shape ('JSON {success} or an error string'). This is meaningful supplementary context for a destructive operation.

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 about 30 words and front-loaded: core meaning first, then destructive warning with alternative, then return format. Every sentence earns its place — no filler, no restatement of schema fields, and the most decision-relevant information (destructive + prefer unlist) appears immediately.

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 2-param destructive tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and an output schema, the description is strong. It covers purpose, ownership, destructive nature, preferred alternative, and return format. The only minor gap is whether the soft-delete is recoverable and how — no restore sibling appears in the list, leaving the reversibility ambiguity unresolved.

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 100% — both collection_id and reason have descriptions ('Collection ID.' and 'Discard reason.'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does imply reason is required by the destructive context, but the schema already marks both as required.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Discard (soft-delete) an entire collection'), adds the ownership constraint ('must own it'), and clarifies the implementation ('via v2 GraphQL'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling nexus_unlist_collection by naming it as the preferred alternative. An agent can immediately understand both what this tool does and how it differs from nearby 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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer nexus_unlist_collection' tells the agent this tool is not the default choice, and the DESTRUCTIVE warning indicates it should only be used deliberately. It does not fully articulate the conditions under which discard IS the right choice versus unlist, but the preference signal plus destructive framing provides clear context.

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