create_collectionCreate an empty named collection (write scope required) and return its slug for organizing snippets; collection names are unique per account.
Create an empty collection by name (write scope required) and return its slug. Names are unique per account and accounts hold up to 50 collections. Renaming and deleting collections stay in the app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds real value beyond that: the required write scope, per-account name uniqueness, the 50-collection account limit, and the fact that rename/delete are not available through this call.
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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, the permission and uniqueness constraints, and what it does not handle. Nothing is redundant and the core action is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the permission requirement, uniqueness and quota constraints, and states that a slug is returned. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single parameter — it does, explaining that 'name' must be unique per account and is subject to an account-level collection cap. Length constraints remain only in the schema, but the important semantic constraint is stated.
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 an empty collection by name') and adds the scope permission and return value. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_collections and fetch_collection, which read rather than create.
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 clear operating context: write scope is required, names must be unique per account, and there is a 50-collection cap. It also notes that renaming and deleting are handled in the app, which effectively excludes those operations here, though it does not name a sibling alternative for them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.