Create a Mudbase document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by revealing that the tool 'fires the collection's configured webhooks and triggers' and that data must conform to the schema, which are non-obvious side effects and constraints beyond simply 'creating a document'. It does not mention permissions or failure behavior, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives the key constraint, and the third reveals side effects. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 all parameters are required and documented in the schema, and the description explains the create action, schema-match constraint, and side-effect behavior, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. It could optionally mention the response format, but the absence of an output schema does not make the description incomplete enough to drop below a 4.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that 'data' must match the collection's declared field schema and points agents to mudbase_get_collection for the authoritative schema, going beyond the generic schema text.

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 states the action explicitly: 'Create a new document in a Mudbase collection.' It identifies the resource (document), the container (collection), and the operation (create), which is clearly distinct from siblings like update, delete, or list.

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 establishes when to use the tool: when creating a new document, not updating an existing one. It also provides a prerequisite by telling agents to check the collection's field schema via mudbase_get_collection. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the create-vs-update context is clear.

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