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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in the annotations: source defaults to 'manual' and the operation is plan-gated. It omits failure behavior (duplicate slug, quota errors), which matters for a creation tool.

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?

Very tight, front-loaded with the verb first and the dense schema/type reference after. No filler sentences. The terse shorthand ('…') keeps it short without wasting space.

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 7-parameter, nested-object creation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail on side effects, the description covers the hardest part (field schema syntax) but says nothing about slug uniqueness, site_id scoping, or visibility semantics of isPublic. Adequate, not 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 coverage is 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: the schema array's element shape and the full field-type enum are spelled out, which the schema itself only leaves as a bare object. But name, slug, site_id, isPublic and description get no explanation in the description, and 'schema' points back to the description in a small circular loop.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a collection'), which is clearly distinct from the row-level siblings (create_collection_row, create_collection_rows) and from delete_collection. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as update_collection_schema (for later field changes) or import_collection_csv (for bulk data). 'Plan-gated' hints at a precondition but doesn't say what to do when the plan doesn't permit it.

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