create_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds the important behavioral detail that no artwork will be uploaded, which is not in the annotations and helps an agent understand this tool's scope. It doesn't describe other side effects or return behavior, but the annotations plus this extra detail provide reasonable transparency.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every phrase earns its place, and it avoids any redundant or vague wording. It is appropriately concise.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered by structured data. The description, combined with annotations, gives enough context for the tool's purpose and the 'without uploading artwork' distinction. It could mention uniqueness constraints or prerequisites, but for a simple create with a single required parameter, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (name, is_public, description, is_favorite). There is no added meaning beyond the property names in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource type ('normal RomM collection'), and the qualifier 'normal' distinguishes it from the sibling create_smart_collection. The phrase 'without uploading artwork' further clarifies the scope of the operation. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of what the tool does.

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 gives clear context that this is for creating a normal collection, which impliedly contrasts with smart collections among the siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_smart_collection or other alternatives. The user is left to infer the exclusion, though the 'normal' tag makes it straightforward.

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