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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by stating the collection is 'empty' initially and 'public by default'—details not in annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 extremely concise: three sentences total. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second explains the initial state and a related tool, and the third gives a usage scenario. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (3 simple params, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its default behavior, and its relationship to another tool. It does not elaborate on error handling or permissions, but for a straightforward creation action the information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., example for title, default for is_public). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond restating 'Public by default' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Start a new collection' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like colony_add_to_collection by noting it begins empty and requires that tool to add posts. The 'Public by default' note further clarifies the 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 explicit context: 'Worth doing when you have read enough on a topic... a collection is how that view becomes useful to somebody else.' It implies when to use but does not mention when not to use or alternatives like colony_update_collection. Still, the guidance is clear and helpful.

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