Delete Collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still earns credit by defining the destructiveness boundary: metadata is destroyed, referenced documents are preserved. It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permissions.

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?

Two short sentences, zero redundancy, with the destructive scope clarification front-loaded right after the action statement.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description needs only the action and the blast radius, both of which it supplies. Missing only auth/permission preconditions for a workspace-scoped destructive call.

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% and both parameters are documented inline (including that collectionId comes from list_collections or create_collection), so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an AFFiNE sidebar collection') and immediately scopes the effect ('removes the collection metadata but does not delete the documents it referenced'), which separates it from delete_doc and trash_doc in the sibling list.

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 scope note implies when this is the right call (removing a container, not its contents), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as remove_doc_from_collection or update_collection for the case where the caller only wants to detach items.

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