Delete collection

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

The description adds 'Permanently' and 'This cannot be undone,' which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by emphasizing irreversibility. It does not contradict the annotation and provides useful behavioral context about the operation's consequences. However, it could mention other side effects (e.g., impact on associated objects), but for a simple deletion, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and irreversibility. There is no redundant 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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a destructive operation, the description is reasonably complete: it states what, how (by ID), and the irreversible nature. It does not explain post-deletion effects or error conditions, but these are not essential for basic use. It is slightly below a perfect score because it omits any mention of what happens to associated data (e.g., collection cards).

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 input schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'Collection ID (UUID).' The description only repeats this with 'by its ID,' adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Permanently delete a collection by its ID.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'collection' are specific, and the permanence caveat adds clarity. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like update_collection or get_collection.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to delete a collection) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention, for example, that this should be used instead of update_collection when permanent removal is intended. Usage guidance is implied by the tool name and description, but not directly stated.

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