collection_copies_v1_delete

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements and that body is required, but it does not describe what deletion actually does (e.g., permanent deletion, impact on collections), what the response looks like, or any side effects. The reference to an external guide implies more behavior, but the description itself is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences of invoking the delete 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 concise (one line plus a note), front-loads the HTTP method and purpose, and includes essential operational details (required body, auth) without unnecessary fluff. It efficiently uses space, though mixing languages (English and Chinese) may reduce clarity for some agents.

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?

Despite having no output schema and a delete operation that could have hidden complexities, the description does not explain the body's structure, possible query parameters, or error semantics. It points to an external guide, but for a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects, relying on an external guide for core invocation details leaves the description incomplete for an agent to reliably construct a valid request.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters, leaving the schema coverage at 100%. The description adds value by specifying that body is required and by listing environment variables for OAuth token fallback, which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain what the body should contain or what query/path parameters are valid, so it does not fully compensate for the schema's minimal details.

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 identifies the HTTP method (DELETE), the endpoint path, and the action 'Delete Copies'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_copies_v1_get, _patch, and _post. Despite being terse, it leaves no doubt about the tool's core purpose.

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 states that 'body' is required and that an OAuth token is necessary, providing some usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any conditions for exclusion. Pointing to an external guide (itad://guide/calling) is helpful but does not substitute for explicit when-to-use guidance in the description itself.

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