outliner-collection_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, such as whether the collection is added to the current scene, whether it affects visibility or selection, or any prerequisites like existing parent collection existence. It doesn't state operational constraints or success/failure conditions. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and target. It contains no fluff and is easy to parse. It effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is relatively complete in scope but lacks behavioral nuance. For a create operation, it doesn't cover error cases or side effects, which might be important for the agent to understand the impact. However, considering the complexity is low, it's minimally viable but has room to improve.

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%, but the schema has titles for each parameter: 'New collection name' and 'Parent collection; scene root when empty'. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'named parent collection' but does not elaborate on name constraints or parent validation. Since the schema is simple and already explains the parameters, the description adds little beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema provides adequate semantics.

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 action: 'Create a collection' with the location specification ('under the scene root or a named parent collection'). It uses a specific verb plus resource and provides scope, distinguishing it from other outliner tools like renaming or deleting collections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools in the sibling list, though the context of outliner-collection is clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: when creating a collection, and specifies the parent parameter. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. There's no explicit guidance on scenarios like creating nested collections or handling conflicting names, which could be useful. The instruction to use the parent parameter is clear but lacks broader context.

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