collection_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permanent nature of deletion and the non-deletion of notebooks, which is important behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens to associated artifacts, or any permission requirements. The confirm parameter is disclosed but its purpose (safety guard) is implied rather than explicit.

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 and front-loaded with the key fact (permanent deletion, notebooks not deleted). The Args section is clear and minimal. No wasted words, though the format could be slightly more structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and only 2 parameters, so the description covers the essential semantics. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations, it could benefit from more context about what happens to the collection's contents, whether the operation can be undone, and any side effects. The confirm parameter's role is stated but not elaborated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains collection_id as a UUID and confirm as a boolean that must be True after user approval. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could be more detailed about the confirm parameter's role in preventing accidental deletion.

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 deletes a collection permanently and explicitly notes that notebooks inside are NOT deleted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_delete and source_delete, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 usage for deleting a collection, and the confirm parameter requirement is stated. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like notebook_delete or provide conditions for when to use this vs. other deletion tools. The 'confirm must be True after user approval' gives some usage context but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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