Add a folder to a collection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it snapshots the previous state before the write and explicitly points to nuvio_undo for revert. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the mutation's safety and reversibility. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded, and the snapshot/revert note is a high-value addition. Every word 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context (snapshot, undo path) and the main parameters. It doesn't explain profile_id or the exact effect of catalogSources, but the schema already details those. The undo pointer compensates for the lack of output schema and idempotency info.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'folder (with catalog sources)' and 'existing collection', which maps to the 'folder' and 'collection_id' parameters, but it does not explain 'profile_id' or the nested folder fields beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds some meaning but leaves the profile_id parameter undocumented in prose.

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 a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('a folder (with catalog sources) to an existing collection'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvio_update_collection_folder and nuvio_remove_collection_folder. It could be slightly more explicit about the 'add' semantics versus 'create', but the action and target are clear.

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 implies usage: use this when you want to add a folder to an existing collection. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes nuvio_update_collection_folder and nuvio_remove_collection_folder, which an agent could infer. No explicit exclusions or conditions are provided, so it's adequate but not strong.

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