create_collection

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal legacy status, REVIEW_REQUIRED return behavior, and name normalization, but it does not explain the review workflow, side effects, or what actually happens after REVIEW_REQUIRED.

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 compact and front-loaded, immediately warning about legacy behavior and routing the agent to the recommended tools. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers the key routing decision well, but leaves gaps around what REVIEW_REQUIRED means in practice and what the description parameter is for.

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 no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for 'name' via casefold and collapsed-whitespace normalization, but says nothing about the 'description' parameter.

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 identifies this as a legacy direct write for collections and mentions normalized-name behavior. It is clear enough, though it never states the full purpose in a straightforward sentence like 'creates a 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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use prepare_write/commit_write instead, with the reason being that this legacy tool returns REVIEW_REQUIRED. This provides unambiguous when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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