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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, destructive write, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does: initial status UNPUBLISH, default publish date is tomorrow, and the website is resolved from either an id or a uuid. It does not say what happens if both website params are omitted, nor how duplicate slugs are handled, which are the main remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the operation and status, then move to the parameters most likely to be misused. No filler, though the parameter notes read as a flat list rather than being ordered by importance.

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 an 11-param, no-output-schema create tool, the description covers the non-obvious fields and defaults that an agent could not infer from the bare schema. The gaps (slug constraints, what the call returns, behavior when the website selector is omitted) are real but secondary.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially pays it: it explains publish_datetime format/default, the website id/uuid alternatives, and the FAQ object shape. Required params title and slug, plus icon, content, keywords, language, and description, get no explanation (slug's URL/format expectations in particular are left unclear).

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a new seliee_collection") and immediately states the initial state (UNPUBLISH), which tells an agent exactly what the call produces. It does not differentiate itself from the many create_* siblings (create_page, create_article, create_template) or point to list_collections/get_collection for verification, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit "use this when..." guidance and no named alternative. However, "starts as UNPUBLISH" implicitly signals the follow-up flow (publish via publish_collection, modify via edit_collection), which is useful inferred context. Usage remains implied rather than stated.

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