Create Collection

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral details not in annotations: it's free (no credits), collections start empty, indexing is async, and it returns a specific object shape with collection_id. This goes beyond the structured fields.

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 a clear opening, a note about async indexing, return format, and example prompts. While longer than the minimal example, each section adds practical value and the structure is easy to scan.

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 simple creation tool, the description covers purpose, usage, workflow, return schema, and examples. It mentions related sibling tools appropriately and leaves no major operational gaps.

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 fully describes the 'name' parameter with an example. The description reinforces it with prompt examples and mentions 'named' but doesn't add new technical constraints. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a named document collection' and defines its purpose for cross-document semantic search and RAG-based Q&A. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like collection.search, collection.ask, and collection.add_document.

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 states when to use: 'Use when you want to group related evidence bundles for unified search or question answering.' It also clarifies the workflow by noting collections start empty and that documents must be added via collection.add_document, with indexing async. This gives clear context, though it doesn't enumerate exclusions like when not to use.

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