permanently_delete_collective

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

The description adds the critical irreversibility warning ('THIS IS IRREVERSIBLE') and the precondition (must be in trash), which go beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also clarifies the deleteTeam parameter's effect on the underlying Team. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true).

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the irreversibility warning and the prerequisite, then the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant details are included.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the destructive nature, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its irreversibility, the required precondition, and the optional flag. It doesn't mention success responses or error cases, but those are not critical for calling this tool correctly. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it properly.

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 schema already documents both parameters (id from list_trashed_collectives, deleteTeam default false). The description adds a reminder that the Collective must already be in trash and that deleteTeam=true removes the Team, but this largely reinforces the schema. The added value is marginal, so baseline 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: permanently delete a Collective from the trash. It distinguishes this from siblings like delete_collective (soft delete) and restore_trashed_collective by emphasizing the irreversibility and the requirement that the item already be in trash. The verb, resource, and scope are specific.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: 'The Collective must already be in the trash (use delete_collective first).' This gives clear context on when to use the tool and points to the correct preceding action. It also explains the optional deleteTeam behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like restore_trashed_collective, but the condition is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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