delete_variable_collection

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses destruction, cascading removal of all contained variables and modes, loss of node bindings, and irreversibility through this tool. It omits permission requirements and failure/idempotency behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the most important signal ('DESTRUCTIVE') is front-loaded before the consequences. Every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the critical facts an agent needs: severity, cascade scope, binding side effects, and irreversibility. It could still note how to obtain the collectionId (e.g., from get_local_variables), which is the only notable gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents collectionId fully. The description adds cascade context but no parameter-specific syntax, sourcing guidance, or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('permanently delete a local variable collection') and explicitly scopes the cascade to 'ALL variables and modes inside it', which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling delete_variable (single variable) and delete_style/delete_node.

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?

It gives clear context for when caution is required (destructive, cascading, irreversible) but does not name alternatives or state when a lighter-weight tool like delete_variable should be used instead. Clear context with no explicit exclusions maps to a 4.

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