Delete API Collection

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

Despite annotations already signaling destructiveness (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), the description goes beyond by disclosing what gets destroyed (cascading soft-deletion to folders and requests), distinguishing soft vs hard delete semantics, and revealing environment-dependent auth requirements (confirmation_text needed, prod policy block). This matches the 'what gets destroyed' and 'auth needs' categories for added context.

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 fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and effect, the second delivers the environment/confirmation requirement. Every phrase earns its place, and the density is appropriate for the destructive nature of the operation.

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 5 parameters, the description efficiently covers the cascade scope, the soft-delete behavior, and environment rules. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. Minor gaps remain: the confirmationText/confirmation_text distinction isn't fully specified, and the 'content-bound' keyword format is left vague, but the key safety-relevant details are present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'confirmation_text' and its requirement in dev/test, which directly helps resolve the potentially confusing confirmationText vs confirmation_text distinction. However, it never explains 'confirm', 'workspaceId', or 'collectionId' (though collectionId is self-evident and required). The description partially compensates but leaves the two similar confirmation parameters ambiguous beyond a passing mention.

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 uses a specific verb-action pair ('Soft-deletes an API collection') with resource scope ('cascades soft-deletion to its folders and requests'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_request (different target resource) by clarifying the cascade behavior, which is unique to this tool among the siblings. The 'through the command bus' detail adds architectural precision.

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 clear environmental context: 'Dev/test require a content-bound confirmation_text; prod blocks by policy.' This tells the agent when the tool can be used (dev/test with confirmation) versus when it cannot (prod), which is crucial for a destructive tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions versus sibling tools, though the namespace and cascade detail imply when to use it.

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