sw_collapse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it does not say whether the collapse is reversible via sw_explode, whether it targets the active document only, or what state change results.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely economical.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, non-destructive annotation), so little is strictly required. Still, an agent calling it cannot know from the description whether an exploded view must currently exist, which document is affected, or how to restore the exploded state.

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% and the single 'doc' parameter is fully documented as a title or path defaulting to the active document. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Collapse') and resource ('the exploded view'), so the agent can tell it reverses an explode operation. It does not explicitly name its inverse sibling sw_explode, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus sw_explode, no precondition (e.g. an exploded view must exist), and no statement about what happens when nothing is exploded. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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