telys_create_collection

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

The description discloses a key behavioral detail not in annotations: 'The new collection is built but NOT persisted, so telys_list_collections shows it only after a mutating tool (telys_add, telys_upsert, …) writes to it.' This is crucial for an agent to understand the actual state after the call. It also reinforces idempotentHint by stating repeating returns the existing collection unchanged, adding value beyond the annotation.

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 but covers multiple essential points: purpose, optional nature, parameter specifics, persistence behavior, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words. A slight reduction could be made by trimming the persistence explanation, but it is valuable enough to justify the length.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the action, the optionality, the parameters, the non-persistence caveat, and the idempotent behavior. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by explaining when to use it. No critical information is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra meaning: it clarifies that partition_by is a single metadata key name and instructs how to handle compound keys ('compose compound keys into one string yourself'). It also restates the default ('scope'). This is genuinely helpful beyond the schema, though the schema already provides the basics.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a named Telys memory collection in the active store, wired to the built-in embedder.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like telys_add and telys_upsert by emphasizing that it's optional and for fixing the name and partition key up front. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Optional — telys_add auto-creates on first write — but use it to fix the name and partition key up front.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs. relying on auto-creation, and why. It also notes that repeating with the same name returns the existing collection, which implies idempotent behavior.

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