delete_gear_collectionPermanently delete a gear collection without removing its gear items. Requires collectionUUID.
Delete a gear collection. WARNING: This cannot be undone. The gear items in the collection will NOT be deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collectionUUID | Yes | The collection UUID to delete (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explicitly states that the operation cannot be undone and that gear items within the collection are NOT deleted. This prevents misuse and clarifies the exact scope of the destruction.
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, conveying the purpose and two key cautions in just two short sentences. No unnecessary words 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?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential details: what is deleted, that it's irreversible, and that items are preserved. The annotation confirms destructiveness, making the documentation complete.
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 single parameter collectionUUID is fully described in the schema with 'The collection UUID to delete (required)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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 states 'Delete a gear collection' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'delete_gear' which targets individual gear items. The warning clarifies scope, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 states the action, and while it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the warning 'This cannot be undone' implies caution. Among siblings, delete_gear is the obvious alternative for deleting individual items, so the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.