Delete Collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context specifically that referenced documents are preserved, reducing surprise about side effects. It does not elaborate on irreversibility or permissions, but does not contradict 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?

Two concise sentences with the key verb front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second clarifies a crucial nuance. No wasted words.

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 destructiveness of the operation, the description covers the essential behavioral distinction (documents not deleted). The output schema and annotations fill in remaining context. It is slightly thin on post-deletion effects, but adequate for this 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions (workspaceId and collectionId). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') on a specific resource ('AFFiNE sidebar collection') and explicitly distinguishes its scope by clarifying that it removes only metadata, not referenced documents. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_doc and delete_workspace.

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?

It provides clear context about what the tool does and its non-effect on documents, which helps the agent decide when to use it (e.g., when only the collection should be removed, not the docs). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the scope clarification is strong enough to guide selection.

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