Delete collections

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses major behavioral traits: reversibility by default, that items inside collections are never deleted, subcollections follow their parent, permanent deletion has no way back, and trashed collections become unlistable. These details materially affect how an agent should invoke the tool and handle the response, going well beyond the structured annotations.

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 yet information-dense; every sentence adds a needed fact: default behavior, item safety, subcollection cascade, permanent deletion caution, and API visibility limitation. Important cautionary details are presented early, and there is no filler.

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 destructive nature of the operation and the presence of annotations and a complete schema, the description fully covers the necessary behavioral context, including edge cases such as subcollections and item retention. It also gives the agent actionable guidance on what to do with the returned key, making it complete for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains collectionKeys, permanent, and groupId. The description reinforces the permanent parameter's intent but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for fully documented schema parameters.

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 ('Move collections to Zotero's trash') and the resource it affects (collections), distinguishing it from item manipulation by specifying that items inside are never deleted. It also covers the two possible behaviors (trash vs. permanent erasure), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does.

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 explicit conditions for using the permanent option: 'Pass permanent: true only on an explicit request from the user.' It also warns about a key consequence—trashed collections cannot be listed through the local API—so the agent knows to record the returned key. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like zotero_restore_collection, but the usage context is clear enough for selection.

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