Borrar colección

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for the extra context it supplies: the operation is irreversible and the contained courses survive the deletion (cascade behavior). It also requires explicit human confirmation, which is exactly the kind of procedural detail annotations cannot express.

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 statements, with the account scope and irreversibility bracket front-loaded before the action and the confirmation prerequisite. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, cascade effects, account scope and the confirmation gate. Only error or failure conditions (e.g. what happens on an invalid or already-deleted collection_id) are left unstated, a minor gap.

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 (collection_id, confirm const true) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement but adds no format, identifier or validation detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 ('Borra una colección tuya') and scopes it to teacher accounts, which separates it cleanly from save_collection, list_collections and move_course_to_collection. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

'Pide confirmación explícita a la persona' gives one concrete precondition for invoking the tool, which is useful guidance. It does not say when to delete vs. keep a collection, nor when the sibling save_collection or move_course_to_collection would be the better choice, so usage is only implied.

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