Data CMS Tool

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

Annotations already show it is not read-only; the description's list of mutating actions (create, update, delete) aligns with that. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permission requirements, side effects) are disclosed beyond what the schema provides.

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 a single run-on sentence with a long list of actions, making it hard to parse quickly. It could be split into multiple sentences or broken down for clarity. It is not concise.

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 the complexity of the input schema (multiple nested actions), the description fails to provide an overview of how actions are organized, typical usage patterns, or how to sequence operations. It is incomplete for effective agent guidance.

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 description does not explain the 'actions' parameter structure or how to invoke specific actions. It merely lists action names, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema, which is verbose but lacks high-level guidance.

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 lists specific CMS actions (get collection list, create collection, etc.), making it clear that the tool manages CMS collections and items. It distinguishes from sibling tools like data_comments_tool by focusing on CMS operations. However, it lacks a concise verb-resource summary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other data tools. The description merely enumerates actions without contextual hints about selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and action list.

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