group_collapse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose whether the group must already be expanded, whether the collapse is a toggle, what happens if the group is not collapsible, or whether any UI state changes beyond the collapse occur.

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 short but under-specified; this is not effective conciseness. It provides a single clause with no structure, no context, and no parameter guidance, so it does not earn its place as a complete tool definition.

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 tool with three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves unresolved how to identify the target group, what 'title' means, and how the tool relates to group_expand and group_state, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (name, title, session_id). An agent cannot determine which parameter identifies the form group or how session_id is used, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Collapse') and resource ('a collapsible form group'), so the action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like group_expand, but the opposite verb makes the intent reasonably apparent.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus group_expand or other group-related tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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