store_purge_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly details the soft-delete semantics: records get deleted=1, are recoverable, fall out of get/list/search, and the store.db is never removed. The confirmation guard and store_scope confinement are also disclosed, providing essential safety and side-effect information beyond what any schema or annotation could convey.

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 appropriately sized for a destructive tool, front-loading the core purpose and then adding necessary safety and behavior details in a logical order. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, soft-delete model, database persistence, confirmation guard, and scope limitation. No wasted words.

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 bulk mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers operational effect, data recovery, scope restrictions, and the confirmation mechanism. It even addresses the boundary of the tool's responsibility (hard removal), which is rare and highly informative for an AI agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description directly explains the 'confirm' parameter: 'pass confirm=<collection name> to proceed'. It also implicitly clarifies the 'collection' parameter as the target of the purge. The 'app_id' parameter is not explicitly discussed, but its purpose is likely evident from the store_* context, and the description adds significant value for the most critical 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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Soft-delete EVERY record in a collection at once — a bulk store_delete'. The verb 'soft-delete' and resource 'collection' are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools like store_delete, store_list, and store_search, which operate on individual records or queries.

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?

Clear when to use: 'for clearing out a whole collection (e.g. leftover test/scratch data)'. It also provides when-not-to-use guidance by explicitly stating that hard removal is 'deliberately outside the tool surface' and that records are 'retained (deleted=1)' and are recoverable, implying this is not for permanent deletion. The mention of 'store_scope' confinement and the confirm parameter further clarify usage constraints.

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