postCollections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description partly restates those ("Effect: creates a new resource", non-idempotency). It earns credit for the added consequence — that repetition creates additional resources rather than failing — plus the permission prerequisite and an explanation of what dry_run actually returns. It does not cover partial-failure or rollback behavior in a batch create.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, and the dry_run tip is actionable. However, "Effect: creates a new resource" and the idempotency sentence are partly redundant with each other and with the annotations, and the dry_run paragraph largely repeats the schema's own dry_run description.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return shape needn't be explained) and full schema description coverage, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant facts: permission requirement, mutation effect, non-idempotency warning, sibling alternatives, and a safe preview path. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, including a detailed dry_run description and projectId guidance, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that requestBody is JSON:API resource data; it does not explain the nested relationships (testRuns, documents, richPages, upstreamCollections) or batch-array semantics beyond what the schema shows.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates Collections from the supplied JSON:API resource data") and adds the return behavior. It explicitly names getCollections and patchCollections, so an agent can distinguish create from list and update without inspecting sibling schemas.

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?

Gives the precondition ("Requires project permission to create Collections") and routes to the correct alternatives by intent: getCollections to list, patchCollections to update. It also supplies a recommended pre-call workflow (run with dry_run: true to validate), which is concrete when-to-use guidance.

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