MCP Server for ArangoDB

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds minimal context by implying a write action ('Create'), but doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like permissions required, idempotency, error handling, or system impact beyond what annotations cover. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 destructive creation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. Given the annotations handle safety profiling, the description meets a bare minimum but doesn't provide rich contextual guidance.

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%, with all parameters (name, type, waitForSync) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining collection naming rules, implications of 'document' vs 'edge' types, or performance effects of waitForSync. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new collection in the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'arango_list_collections' (which lists rather than creates) or 'arango_insert' (which inserts data rather than creating structures), missing full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing database access), compare to siblings like 'arango_list_collections' for checking existing collections, or specify scenarios where collection creation is appropriate versus other operations.

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