destroy_collection

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description goes beyond by explicitly stating 'This operation is irreversible. All data will be permanently lost.' This adds critical context about the permanence and impact, matching the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but still clear. The warning is appropriately placed. 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?

Given the annotations and output schema (returning a string), the description covers the core intent, irreversibility, parameter, and return. Minor gaps: does not specify that the collection must exist or handle error cases, but these are not critical for a delete operation with annotations.

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% (description does not describe params; schema only lists 'collection_name' with minimal description). The description's Args section calls 'collection_name' a 'Collection identifier,' adding some semantic meaning but not enough to compensate for the lack of param details in the schema.

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 primary function: 'Permanently delete a collection from disk.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'collection' are specific. The tool is distinct from siblings like 'delete_documents' (deletes documents, not collection) and 'drop_index' (drops index).

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 includes a warning about irreversibility, implying permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'drop_index' for indexes) or provide guidance on prerequisites like ensuring the collection is not in use.

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