Delete a collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: the contained books survive the deletion, built-in collections are rejected, and the app must be closed. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loads the destructive action and the safeguard about books, then the prerequisites, then the arg. The Args line is slightly redundant with the sentence but does carry the numeric-ID detail.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect scope, prerequisites, and refusal behavior. Return value is trivially implied (success/failure), so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate; it states the parameter is a numeric collection ID, which clarifies type and meaning. It adds no format or lookup guidance beyond that, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (user-created collection), and immediately scopes it by excluding built-in collections. An agent can distinguish this from create_collection and rename_collection without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (requires write access, Books must be quit) and an exclusion (built-in collections are refused). It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but the when/when-not guidance is clear and actionable.

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