delete_collective_share

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the link stops working immediately, and page_id defaults to being looked up from the token. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not expand on permanence, permissions, or idempotency beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and immediate effect, then cleanly lists arguments and return value. Every sentence and field earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name. The structure is appropriately sized for a three-parameter delete operation.

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 a destructive delete with annotations and an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it explains all parameters, the immediate effect, and the return confirmation. It could still mention permission requirements or whether the removal is permanent/recoverable, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 carries the full burden and does so well. It documents all three parameters: collective_id as numeric, token as sourced from list_collective_shares, and page_id as the page the link is for with 0 meaning the whole collective and a default lookup from the token. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a public link.' It also explains the immediate outcome ('it stops working at once'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like update_collective_share or share_collective, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_collective_share or share_collective. It mentions that the token comes from list_collective_shares, which helps with prerequisites, but that is not a usage guideline. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use statements.

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