delete_collection

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description goes further by explaining the exact boundary of destruction: 'ROM files are never deleted.' This is valuable behavioral context that prevents an agent from overestimating the impact of deletion. It does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation and adds a meaningful safety guarantee.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the confirmation requirement, and the safety boundary. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter destructive operation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential points: what is deleted, what is not deleted, and the need for confirmation. It does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools, but the tool name and sibling list make the distinction reasonably clear. Minor gaps remain around the exact meaning of the confirm parameter and the result of the operation.

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 description should compensate. It only adds partial meaning for the confirm parameter via 'after explicit confirmation,' and gives no additional context about collection_id or how to obtain valid values. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema properties.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a collection' and adds a critical distinguishing detail: ROM files are never deleted. This helps an agent understand it is deleting the collection container, not the ROM files themselves, and separates it from tools like remove_roms_from_collection or delete_smart_collection.

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 phrase 'after explicit confirmation' provides a clear prerequisite: the confirm flag must be set. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as remove_roms_from_collection or delete_smart_collection, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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