trash_collective

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that the operation is a soft-delete affecting both the collective and its pages, and that it is reversible via restore. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the degree of destructiveness and the side effect on pages, which is useful context. It does not detail any potential error conditions or auth requirements, but the annotation coverage plus the soft-delete explanation justify a high score.

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 compact and well-structured: it front-loads the core action in the first sentence, immediately follows with usage context (undo/permanent), and then provides a clean Args and Returns section. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with a single integer parameter and a confirmation return, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the side effects (soft-delete of pages), the reversal path, and the parameter meaning. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., what happens if the collective is already trashed) or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. A small gap exists around idempotency behavior, but the annotations cover that.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden for parameter documentation. It explicitly states 'collective_id: The numeric collective ID,' which clarifies that the parameter is the identifier of the collective to be trashed, adding meaning beyond the bare schema type of 'integer.' This is minimal but sufficient for a single, obvious parameter.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Move a collective to the trash.' It also clarifies the action as a soft-delete, which distinguishes it from both restore (undo) and delete (permanent). This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling tools restore_collective and delete_collective without requiring schema inspection.

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 explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions for choosing them: 'Use restore_collective to undo, or delete_collective to permanently remove it.' This provides direct guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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