surveymonkey_delete_collector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly warns 'irreversible operation' and states that responses are also deleted, which is essential risk information. It does not mention auth requirements or error behavior, but for a single-resource delete the destructive warning is the most important disclosure.

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 front-loaded: the action comes first, followed by the irreversible warning and the parameter line. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema, but it does not bloat the description.

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 the simple one-parameter surface and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is deleted, the destructive nature, and the required input. It does not specify behaviors like not-found handling, but that is not critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description repeats 'collector_id: Collector ID,' which mostly mirrors the schema's own property title. However, because there is only one parameter and the schema has 0% description coverage, this short clarification still gives a minimal semantic anchor for the agent. It does not add much beyond the schema, but little is needed for such an 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 states a specific action ('Deletes a collector') and adds the critical scope 'and all its responses,' which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for questions, responses, webhooks, and contacts. The resource and effect are clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with update/get/list 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 makes the usage context clear: use this when the collector and all its responses should be permanently removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use it, but the one-line action is unambiguous enough for a simple delete operation.

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