sap_collapse_tree_node

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool modifies state non-destructively. The description adds 'collapse' but does not disclose behaviors like idempotency, error handling for already collapsed nodes, or effects on children. Minimal additional value beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too brief to provide sufficient guidance; a few more words on parameters would be beneficial without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, but the description does not cover return behavior, prerequisites (e.g., tree must be loaded), or what happens when collapsing an already collapsed node. Given the presence of an output schema, more context on input constraints is needed.

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 should compensate, but it provides no explanation for tree_id or node_key. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack context about expected values or formats.

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 clearly states the tool collapses a folder node in a tree control, with a concrete example (SPRO/customizing tree). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like sap_expand_tree_node.

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 implies usage for tree controls but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sap_expand_tree_node or sap_select_tree_node. No when-not or alternative guidance.

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