delete_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the irreversible nature ('Permanently removes', 'cannot be undone'), the cascading effect ('all its documents'), and the destructive outcome. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or response format specifics.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, a warning, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bulleted list enhances readability while maintaining efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive operation with cascading effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job covering purpose, usage, and warnings. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or explicit error handling, which are important for a destructive tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for the single parameter by explaining that 'collection_id' identifies 'The collection ID to delete', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it doesn't specify format or validation rules (e.g., ID structure).

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 clearly states the specific action ('permanently removes') and resource ('a collection and all its documents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_document (which removes individual documents) and list_collections (which only reads). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool through a bulleted list of scenarios (e.g., 'Remove an entire section of content', 'Delete obsolete project collections'). It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by emphasizing the scope (deleting entire collections vs. individual documents or other operations).

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