collection_deletePermanently delete a specific NotebookLM collection while preserving all notebooks within it. Requires explicit confirmation before removal.
Delete a collection permanently. Notebooks inside the collection are NOT deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be True after user approval | |
| collection_id | Yes | UUID of the collection |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.2Input schema / properties / collection_id / descriptionAdded value: +"UUID of the collection"Input schema / properties / confirm / descriptionAdded value: +"Must be True after user approval"v0.9.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the operation is permanent and does not cascade to notebooks. It could mention the need for confirm=true in the tool description itself, but 'permanently' and the non-deletion caveat cover the most critical behavioral traits.
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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about notebooks is placed immediately after, giving high information density with minimal verbosity.
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 destructive operation, the description captures permanence, non-cascading behavior, and the essential parameters are fully covered by the schema. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not necessary. Minor gap: the tool description itself does not state that confirm=true is required, though the schema covers this.
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 already well documented: collection_id is a UUID, and confirm must be true after user approval. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a collection permanently') and clearly distinguishes itself from notebook deletion tools by noting that notebooks inside the collection are NOT deleted. This makes its purpose immediately unambiguous.
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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when a collection should be permanently removed while preserving its notebooks. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the caveat about notebooks strongly implies that this is not for deleting notebooks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.