nexus_create_collection

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it creates both a collection and its first draft revision, and it specifies the exact return shape ({success, collectionId, revisionId}) or an error string. This is valuable context for the agent.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose in the first sentence, invocation guidance in the second, and return behavior in a short block. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 12 parameters and a high-complexity create operation, the description provides a solid orientation: what is created, two ways to provide the payload, and the expected return. The schema and output schema cover field-level specifics; the main missing piece is explicit guidance about when not to use this tool relative to edit/update siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantic value by explaining the relationship between the individual params and collection_data_json, and by providing the expected JSON shape ({adultContent, collectionManifest: {info: {...}, mods: [...]}, collectionSchemaId}), which is not fully captured in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new collection and its first draft revision (v2 GraphQL).' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like nexus_edit_collection and nexus_create_or_update_revision, and clarifies it creates both a collection and an initial draft revision.

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 context is clear: use this to create a new collection, not to edit or update an existing one. It also explains the two valid invocation strategies (individual params vs. collection_data_json), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions like 'use nexus_edit_collection for existing collections.'

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