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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing that nothing is written into the repo, that old per-repo .collide/ hook files are removed and staged for the user to commit, and that the machine is linked to the account. The staged-removal detail reconciles the seemingly destructive file deletion with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the imperative to run the returned command, then packs install/removal/return details efficiently. Slightly dense but each clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return ('Returns the command and what it installs'), the side effects, and the account linkage. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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% and the schema already documents repo_id (git origin) and explains that mode is ignored. The description only implies the repo-root context and adds no parameter syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Set up Collide on this machine') and enumerates exactly what the setup does: installs hooks for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Hermes, links the machine to the account. No sibling tool (blast_radius, claim, recall, etc.) overlaps, so the agent can identify it immediately.

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 concrete usage context: 'once for every repo on it' and 'run it exactly as given, in a shell at the repo root.' It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling competes for this job, so the guidance is clear without exclusions.

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