create_collection

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real side effects: it writes `brindley: 1` plus details into README.md front-matter, creates the folder and README if absent, and returns an AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md snippet on the first collection. It stops short of idempotency/overwrite behavior and permission needs, but the mutation surface is unusually well described.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by scope precondition and the notable return value. No filler, nothing repeated from 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the write behavior and the conditional return, but leaves most optional fields (owner, title, summary, agent) and error/idempotency behavior unexplained, so an agent still has gaps.

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 70%, so the schema already documents most parameters (name default, path example, docs/link/tags/types). The description only adds that the supplied details land in README.md front-matter ('the given details'), which is a modest gain; it leaves owner, title, summary, and agent unexplained.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Mark a folder as a collection' and it names the concrete artifact written (`brindley: 1` in README.md front-matter). It is distinguishable from update_collection by the 'mark' framing and from generic create, though it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

'Works on a folder that already holds numbered initiative files' is a useful precondition, but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of update_collection as the alternative for an existing collection, and no statement about what happens when the folder is already marked.

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