generateCollection

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive operation. The description adds that the response contains a polling link (async) and a prerequisite. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: action, prerequisite, response. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the purpose.

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 the complexity (nested options, async operation), the description covers the core purpose, a prerequisite, and the response format. It lacks mention of the specId and name parameters (but schema covers them). No output schema, so the polling link detail is helpful. Adequate but could mention that it's non-idempotent (though annotations already convey that).

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a collection from an API specification, distinguishing it from sibling tools like createCollection (which likely creates an empty collection) and getSpecCollections (which retrieves existing collections). The verb 'generates' and resource 'collection from spec' are specific.

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 mentions a prerequisite (spec must exist) and the async nature (polling link). It does not explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like createCollection, but the context of sibling tools implies this is for spec-based generation. More explicit guidance would improve it.

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