3land Create Collection

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it is an 'operation class write' and advises confirming marketplace state before writes, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or failure modes, especially given openWorldHint=true.

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?

The description is 4 sentences, but it is not tightly focused. It includes redundant information (e.g., 'SAP MCP context: Protocol 3land; operation class write' which repeats annotation info) and a confusing sentence listing multiple flows. It could be more concise by eliminating extraneous content.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown), so description need not explain return values. However, the description lacks critical context such as what happens on successful creation (e.g., collection ID), error conditions, prerequisites beyond the mentioned confirmation, and how the output schema relates to the process. With high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. It mentions preconditions but no parameter-specific guidance. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new NFT collection on 3.Land marketplace.' This is a specific verb+resource pair, and the tool name matches. It distinguishes itself from sibling 3land tools (e.g., 3land_mintAndList, 3land_listForSale) by focusing solely on collection creation.

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?

The description says 'Use for 3.Land NFT collection, minting, listing, cancellation, and purchase flows,' which is overly broad and does not clearly differentiate when to use this specific tool versus siblings. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like 3land_mintAndList or 3land_listForSale. The caution about confirming state is useful but not sufficient for usage decisions.

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