delete-assets-by-collection-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Remove assets' suggests a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects other data, or has rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive mutation tool with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, or how it integrates with sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional context.

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 50% (only 'collectionId' has a description). The description mentions 'specific collection' and 'assets', aligning with the parameters but not adding meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain 'assetIds' format or constraints, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Remove assets from a specific collection' clearly states the action (remove) and target (assets from a collection). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete-asset' (single asset) and 'delete-collections-by-collection-id' (entire collection), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a bulk operation or how it differs from other deletion tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete-asset' (for single assets) or 'put-assets-by-collection-id' (which might update assets). The description implies usage for removing multiple assets from a collection, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names alone.

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