Crear o editar una colección

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the teacher-account precondition and the edit-time requirement to resend the current title, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says whether fields omitted on an edit are preserved or cleared, which is the main behavioral risk for a create-or-update 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the account scope, then the create-vs-edit rule, then the title caveat. No filler; the only weakness is that the edit caveat is compressed into a clause an agent could skim past.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, account requirement, and the create/edit switch, but leaves gaps: partial-update behavior for slug, video_url, and description, and what the call returns (created/updated collection id?) are unstated. Adequate but not complete given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: the presence of collection_id is what switches the call from create to edit, and title must carry the existing value when unchanged because it is required. Those are non-obvious conditional semantics beyond the field descriptions.

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 dual verb (create or edit) on a concrete resource ('colección de cursos') and scopes it to a teacher account. An agent can separate it from list_collections, delete_collection, and reorder_collection_courses, though it never names the nearest neighbors (save_theme, move_course_to_collection) to disambiguate.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: send collection_id to edit an existing collection, omit it to create a new one, and the parenthetical '[Cuenta docente]' flags the prerequisite account type. It stops short of naming any alternative tool or saying when not to use this one (e.g. vs save_theme).

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