create_collection

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

Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful operational context: it creates a real table and defaults to an auto-increment id when fields are omitted. The folder branch is also disclosed, which helps the agent understand the side effects of each call.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the main purpose is front-loaded and the conditional behavior is compressed into a single follow-up sentence. Every clause 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?

For a creation tool with one required parameter and clear schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't describe the expected return value or the structure of the optional fields array, and it could point to create_field or validate_collection_creation, but these do not block correct invocation.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3; the description adds value by defining the conditional behavior of the fields and folder parameters (no fields -> auto-increment id; folder:true -> grouping element). It doesn't detail the shape of nested field objects, but that is not required for a basic call and the schema already labels each 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new collection') and immediately disambiguates the two main modes: a real table with an auto-increment id or a folder grouping element. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_field or delete_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 clearly establishes when to use it: creating a new collection, with optional fields. It also explains the folder alternative as an in-tool option. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as create_field or validate_collection_creation, but the context is clear enough that an agent won't confuse it with another tool.

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