arango_create_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create or update', implying mutation, but omits critical details: whether the schema replaces or merges, permissions required, side effects on existing documents, or if the operation is reversible. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 very concise with a single sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) and does not mention parameters, usage context, or return values. While brevity is valued, the description is too minimal for a tool with four parameters, including a complex nested schema object.

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 complexity of the tool (4 parameters, nested object schema, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the schema is applied, its relationship to collection validation, or any side effects. Sibling tools like 'arango_validate_document' suggest interplay, but no connection is made. The description lacks completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

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?

The tool description adds no information about the parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% (two out of four parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The 'name' and 'collection' parameters lack documentation both in the schema and the description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. The description does not clarify the purpose of each parameter or provide format examples.

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 or update') and the resource ('a named JSON Schema for a collection'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'arango_create_collection' (which creates a collection, not a schema) and 'arango_validate_document' (which validates documents using a schema). The verb+resource combination is specific and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. For example, it does not indicate whether this tool should be used before inserting documents or if there are existing schemas that might conflict. The usage context is entirely implied.

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