akb_delete_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses destructive behavior (cascade delete), a side effect (one git commit), and role requirements (writer/admin depending on table inclusion). This is more than most tool descriptions provide.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by conditional behavior and role requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: empty vs non-empty handling, recursive requirement, cascade scope, git commit side effect, and role prerequisites. It does not explicitly state what happens if recursive=false on a non-empty collection (error vs no-op), but this is strongly implied. Overall quite complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains how 'recursive' behaves in practice (cascade deletion) and connects the table condition to elevated role requirements. This elevates it above baseline.

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 ('Delete a collection') and differentiates it from sibling tools like akb_delete_vault and akb_delete_file by focusing on collection semantics. It also clarifies the two distinct cases (empty vs non-empty) that define the tool's scope.

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 provides clear conditions for usage: empty collections delete the metadata row, non-empty require recursive=true. It also gives role-based prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the resource-specific naming makes that mostly implicit.

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