Create a collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool never blind-creates, that existing same-named collections are reused and extended, and that Steam deletes duplicates during creation. It also notes the execution prerequisite of Steam running with debugging enabled. It does not describe output or error behavior, but the core mutation semantics are clear.

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: the main purpose is stated first, followed by the critical duplicate-handling nuance and the prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information without padding.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and prerequisite, but there is no output schema and no mention of return values or failure outcomes. Given the tool's mutation potential and the lack of annotations, some additional context about what happens on success or when Steam is not properly configured would make it more complete.

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 50%: dry_run and on_existing already have descriptions. The tool description adds some meaning for appids via 'optionally seeded with games,' but it does not elaborate on the name parameter or the exact meaning of appids beyond what the schema's type and property name imply.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a static collection, optionally seeded with games.' It also clarifies the non-obvious duplicate-name behavior, which clearly distinguishes this tool from adding games to an existing collection via a sibling tool.

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 gives clear context that this tool creates or reuses a collection and requires Steam running with debugging enabled. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when an agent should prefer a sibling tool like steam_collection_add_games instead.

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