Create a new collection in Outline Wiki to organize documents by name, description, and color for better content management.
Create a new collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| color | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new collection' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 perfectly concise at four words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameters, and results. The agent would need to guess about many aspects of tool invocation and response handling.
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?
The description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by 'collection.' With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (name, description, color), the description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, the parameters are relatively self-explanatory (name, description, color for a collection), so this meets the baseline for adequate but minimal.
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 'Create a new collection' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_document' or 'batch_create_documents', but the resource specificity ('collection') provides adequate clarity for basic understanding.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over sibling tools like 'batch_create_documents' or 'update_collection', or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.