add_to_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call defaults to a non-mutating preview and requires an explicit second call with dry_run=false to commit. It also flags that 0 is not a valid folder id. It stops short of disclosing idempotency or what happens if the release is already in the folder, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and the critical dry-run caveat front-loaded; no filler. Minor angularity from the embedded parenthetical and stray indentation, but nothing wasteful.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies what structured fields omit: the two-phase dry-run contract and the invalid default sentinel. It would be fully complete with a note on repeat-add 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 must carry the param burden, and it does for two of three: it documents dry_run's default/effect and folder_id's default of 1 = Uncategorized with 0 disallowed. release_id is left to its obvious name, which is a minor gap.

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 (add a release to a collection folder), which implicitly separates it from siblings like add_to_wantlist, remove_from_collection, and move_collection_item. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the operational workflow (dry-run first, then call again with dry_run=false), which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as move_collection_item or add_to_wantlist, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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