create_collective

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds real side-effect disclosure beyond them: an automatic landing page, an auto-created team/circle of the same name, and a team folder on Nextcloud 35+ with the Team folders app. It omits permission requirements and what happens on name collision besides 'must be unique'.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the concept, then side effects, then args/returns. The prose paragraph is justified because the side effects are non-obvious, though the Returns block partly restates what an output schema already provides.

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 create tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and both parameters, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of permission/authorization context and duplicate-name behavior.

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%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so: it marks name as required and unique, and explains emoji as an optional icon with a concrete example. It could still note name length limits or formatting rules.

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 and resource ('Create a new collective'), and immediately defines what a collective is (shared wiki-like knowledge base), which draws a clear line against siblings like list_collectives, trash_collective, delete_collective, and the page-level tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the 'must be unique' constraint, but the description never states when to create a collective versus other options (e.g. joining an existing one via join_circle, or whether trashing is recoverable later). No explicit when-not or alternative routing.

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