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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true but say nothing about why; the description explains the real hazard — a retry creates a duplicate collection, so verify with list_collections first. It also discloses the post-create state (only Name/Slug fields present) and the notable side effect of hasPages: entry pages render with no body until a dashboard-designed template is published. This is context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the core action, then follow-up, then the hasPages caveat, then retry safety — a sensible priority order with no filler. It is dense and slightly long for one paragraph, and 'Entries feed listings and sections bound to the collection' is background rather than actionable, but the remaining sentences all carry operational weight.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back (the new collection's fields and updatedAt) and how to proceed, which it does. For a mutating, non-idempotent create with a non-obvious downstream template dependency, the description covers the prerequisites, the side effects, and the failure mode.

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% and the description largely restates schema text — the hasPages explanation ('starts empty and is designed in the dashboard') and the slug's entry-page role both already appear in the parameter descriptions. The only genuine addition is the instruction to keep Name and Slug in the field list on the follow-up call, which is guidance about a sibling call rather than about this tool's parameters.

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 ('Create a new content collection') and immediately distinguishes it from sibling update_collection_schema by describing what this tool does and does not create (only Name and Slug fields exist afterward). An agent can differentiate it from create_entry, create_page, and create_form without opening any schema.

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 explicit sequencing guidance ('call update_collection_schema with this result's updatedAt to define the rest of the field schema') and explicit recovery guidance ('look for the slug with list_collections before trying again'). It names the alternative tool for each situation, which is exactly the when/when-not routing an agent needs.

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