Delete Collection

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

The description simply restates the action already implied by the tool name and annotations; it adds no behavioral context beyond the structured hints. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, what happens to contained documents, or any permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no additional transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it an appropriately concise definition.

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 simple delete action with a fully documented schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the core invocation information is present. However, the definition lacks any usage alternatives, behavioral warnings, or clarification of what happens when force is false and the collection is non-empty, leaving the agent to infer important operational context on its own.

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%, so the baseline applies: both collId and force are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' phrasing mirrors collId but adds no new parameter semantics, and it says nothing about the force parameter.

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) and the resource (a collection), qualified by ID, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like transkribus_coll_delete_empty or transkribus_doc_delete, but the 'by ID' qualifier provides some differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_coll_delete_empty or when a force delete is appropriate. The only implied usage is that the caller has a collection ID, but no explicit scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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