hey_collection

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: the return shape ({success, error?}) and the fact that the operation is reversible by calling again with the opposite action. Annotations already cover the safety/freshness profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's contribution is the response contract and undo path.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded, followed by return shape, then the discovery hint. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the return contract, reversibility, and the ID-discovery prerequisite. Combined with complete schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 topic_id, collection_id, and the action enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats the hey_list_collections hint for collection_id and adds nothing new about parameter format or constraints, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 pair (add/remove) and a specific resource (an email thread within a collection), which an agent can distinguish from siblings such as hey_list_collections or hey_list_collection_emails. No ambiguity about what the tool mutates.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to hey_list_collections to discover valid collection IDs, which is the key prerequisite for calling this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., versus hey_set_status or label tools), so it falls just below the top band.

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