create_collection

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it 'automatically creates a proper database table with schema' and 'can include initial fields', which are key behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, or rate limits. The example adds context but does not cover all behavioral aspects.

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 concise at three sentences plus a structured example. It front-loads the core purpose and uses the example to illustrate complex parameter usage efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaning; no redundancy or fluff.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the automatic schema creation and the ability to include initial fields, and provides a full example. Missing is an explanation of what the tool returns (e.g., the created collection object), which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, it covers the essential usage well.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, all parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds value by providing a detailed example showing how parameters like 'collection', 'meta', 'fields', and nested schema are used together. This clarifies the structure of the 'fields' array and its inner objects, which is not fully captured in the schema description.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new collection (database table) in Directus' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_field, create_item, etc., by clearly stating it creates a table, not a field or item. The example reinforces the purpose.

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 usage via 'Create a new collection' and shows how to include fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_field for adding fields to existing collections, or update_collection for modifying). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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