Delete collection

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

The annotations already provide a destructiveHint, which the description builds upon by clarifying the exact behavioral trait: deletion is two-step and requires a confirmation token. It also specifies that books are not deleted. While no annotations contradict the description, it would benefit from detailing what happens on the first call (e.g., the format or expiration of the token) or any idempotency guarantees. Overall, the description adds significant value beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise—three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action and its scope, explaining the two-step process, and noting the permission requirement. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (two-step process, destructive with a confirmation requirement), the description is complete. It covers what happens, the workflow, and prerequisites. There is no output schema to explain return values, but the description implicitly handles this by describing the first call's output (a token). No additional context is needed from the description.

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 both parameters (collection_id and confirm_token) are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining the two-step workflow that ties these parameters together: the confirm_token comes from a first call. This provides crucial semantic context beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 ('Deletes') and clearly identifies the resource ('a collection'). It distinguishes what the tool affects (the curated list and order) from what it does not (the books remain in the library), which helps differentiate from other tools like 'remove_books_from_collection' or 'delete_playlist'. This is exceptionally clear.

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 explains the two-step workflow ('the first call returns a confirmation token, the second call with that token performs the deletion') and states a prerequisite ('Requires an Audiobookshelf account with delete permission'). This provides excellent guidance on when and how to use the tool, and the sibling list confirms no other tool performs a similar two-step deletion, making the usage context unambiguous.

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