collection_add_resource_to_collection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It lists parameters and returns but omits any side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or failure behavior. The mention of 'ctx: FastMCP context for resource change notifications' hints at notifications but doesn't elaborate. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to scan. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the core action. The parameter list is clear, though it could be slightly more concise by removing the redundant 'ctx' line.

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 that an output schema exists, return details are not required. However, the tool is a mutation with six parameters and no annotations. The description lacks crucial context such as prerequisites (does the collection need to exist?), idempotency (what if the resource is already in the collection?), and any constraints on resource_type. This is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides brief meanings for each parameter, including examples for resource_type (instance, domain, etc.). However, it includes 'ctx' which is not in the schema, and does not give constraints or formats. It adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Add a Vultr resource to a service collection.' This specifies the verb (add), the resource (Vultr resource), and the target (service collection), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like collection_remove_resource_from_collection or collection_create_collection.

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 tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools. An agent is left to infer that this is the tool for adding resources, but there's no explicit direction.

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