Truncate collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive scope ('Delete ALL records') and warns 'Cannot be undone,' which is the most critical side effect. It does not mention permissions, cascade/dependency effects, or whether auto-increment counters reset, but the core risk is disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no fluff; the destructive scope and irreversibility are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes essential information and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core outcome and the key risk of irreversibility. It could be slightly more helpful by naming the alternative for deleting the whole collection, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter, idOrName, has a complete schema description ('Collection id or name to truncate'), and the tool description does not add additional parameter detail. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra meaning and the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('ALL records of a collection'), and clarifies that the collection/schema itself is preserved. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_collection and delete_record without needing to inspect them.

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 clearly frames when this tool applies: removing every record while retaining the collection structure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the contrast with delete_collection and delete_record is embedded in the wording. This is clear context, though not an explicit exclusion list.

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