delete_smart_collection

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: explicit confirmation is required, and ROM files are untouched. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence leads with the core action, states the confirmation requirement, and clarifies the non-destructive scope regarding ROM files. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior for a destructive operation, including confirmation and safe handling of ROM files. With an output schema present and annotations already marking destructiveness, the remaining minor gap is not explicitly stating how confirmation is represented in the call.

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 must compensate. It links 'explicit confirmation' to the confirm parameter and 'smart collection definition' to the target resource, but it does not explicitly name the parameters or explain that confirm must be set to true to proceed.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('smart collection definition'), and a crucial boundary ('does not delete ROM files'). This distinguishes it from sibling tool delete_collection, which targets regular collections, and from destructive ROM operations.

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 implies the intended use: delete a smart collection definition while preserving ROM files. It also conveys the prerequisite of explicit confirmation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_collection or state when to choose one over the other.

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