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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the collection is created empty. It says nothing about behavior when a collection of that name already exists, whether the call is idempotent, permission requirements, or what is returned.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the sibling carve-out in a parenthetical. No filler.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent but omits duplicate-name behavior and return information. The workspace parameter is rescued by the schema, leaving the definition only marginally 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 description coverage is only 50%: 'workspace' is well documented in the schema (including the personal-workspace default), but 'name' is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered 'name' argument.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make an empty collection (folder) for notes') and clarifies that it creates a container with no notes inside. The parenthetical names sibling paths (create_note, move_note) that also produce collections, which helps an agent differentiate, though it doesn't distinguish from list_collections/rename_collection beyond the verb.

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 parenthetical 'create_note and move_note make one too when given a new name' is effectively a when-not-to-use note, steering the agent away from this tool when the collection is a byproduct of creating a note. No explicit prerequisites or exclusions beyond that, but the context is clear.

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