Delete Unsplash Collection

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds meaningful context on top: the operation is irreversible ('This cannot be undone'), requires prior OAuth authentication, and repeats safety guarantee 'Not read-only.' These statements are consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction. Only failure-mode behavior (401/403/404) is left undisclosed.

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?

Three short sentences and every sentence earns its place: irreversibility and scope up front, the authentication prerequisite, and an explicit disambiguation that this is not read-only. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the essential facts are covered: what is deleted, the ownership constraint, irreversibility, and the login prerequisite. The only missing detail is behavior on failures such as a nonexistent or non-owned collection ID, which is minor for such a simple destructive tool.

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% — the single required `id` parameter is already documented as 'The Unsplash collection ID' in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, and at this coverage level the schema carries the burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('delete') with a specific resource ('collection owned by the authenticated user') and stresses permanence. This differentiates it from siblings like create_collection and update_collection without ambiguity.

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?

Clear context is given: the target must be a collection owned by the currently signed-in user, and the exact OAuth prerequisite appears right in the description (`npx @hanoak/unsplash-mcp-server login`). It does not explicitly name exclusion conditions or reasons to prefer another sibling, but for a one-target destructive operation the usage signals are sufficient.

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