LightCMS

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the deletion is container-only and preserves content. This prevents the safety assumption that 'destructive' applies to nested content. No contradictions with 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 sentences with zero waste. First establishes the action, second clarifies scope/safety. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriate length for the tool complexity.

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?

Sufficient for a single-parameter destructive operation. Critical safety information (content preservation) is covered. Could optionally clarify what happens to orphaned content, but adequate given annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Collection ID (MongoDB ObjectID),required'), so baseline applies. Description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema handles this adequately.

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?

Clear verb (Delete) and resource (collection). The second sentence ('This does not delete the content...') begins to distinguish from siblings by clarifying scope, though it could more explicitly differentiate from delete_content or delete_folder.

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?

Provides implicit guidance through the negative constraint about content preservation, helping prevent misuse. However, lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or comparison to alternatives like archive_fork or bulk operations.

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