box_collaboration_delete_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive), but doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format mention is minimal ('result of the deletion or an error message').

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns). The purpose statement is front-loaded, though the formatting with explicit sections is slightly verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose, with 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent, what 'collaboration' means in this context, or detailed error handling. The sibling tools show this is part of a collaboration management system, but the description doesn't connect to that 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 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'collaboration_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the collaboration to delete'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain ID format or where to find it. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of format details slightly reduces the 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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific collaboration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_update_tool' or 'box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), what happens after deletion, or when to use other collaboration tools like update or list tools instead.

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