closeCollection

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the server-side nature and explicitly warning about non-idempotency, which is not fully captured by the annotations. It also details the dry_run preview behavior, including how results are flagged, which is useful beyond the schema. No contradiction with 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 concise, with the core purpose stated first, followed by the effect and a practical tip. It avoids redundant wording and is well-structured, though the second sentence about preview behavior is slightly long but still clear.

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 description explains the tool's effect and the dry_run mechanism, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify what 'closing' entails (e.g., status change, archiving) or what the response looks like, since there is no output schema. Given it's a mutation tool, more detail on the outcome would improve completeness, but the current level is adequate.

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%, with each parameter described in detail, including dry_run's purpose. The description reinforces the dry_run tip but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter 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 clearly states 'Closes the specified Collection' with a specific verb and resource, which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deleteCollection or reopenCollection, relying on the name and context. The additional note about it being a server-side action adds some distinction but not a direct comparison.

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 context that this is a server-side action and not guaranteed idempotent, implying it should be used when a close operation is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete vs. close) or when not to use it. The dry_run tip gives practical usage guidance but no selection criteria.

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