MCP Tool Collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description lists destructive actions (drop, truncate, remove) without explicit warnings but with result hints like 'Dropped collection.' This adds some behavioral context by showing what each action returns, but it does not disclose permissions required, irreversibility, or side effects beyond the annotation flags. The schema description also mentions server-side enforcement of required fields, which is a mild behavioral note.

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 long and repetitive, repeating 'mcp.tool.collection(action=' for every action, which adds bulk. However, it is organized as a clear list with action names and result descriptions, making it scannable despite its length. Each line earns its place by documenting a distinct action, but the repetition could be streamlined.

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?

The combination of the action list and the input schema covers all 16 actions and all payload fields, and the schema explicitly states that required fields depend on the action. However, the description does not enumerate which fields are mandatory for each action beyond the examples, leaving ambiguity for less common actions like import/export. No output schema exists, so return-value completeness is not fully addressed, but the description hints at result types (e.g., 'Inserted document').

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 has 100% field coverage, but the description enriches parameter meaning by providing example payloads for each action. For instance, it shows insert uses collection and document, while delete_index uses id_or_name, mapping the generic payload fields to specific operations. This helps the agent understand which parameters apply to which action, exceeding the schema's flat field descriptions.

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 16 distinct actions (insert, find, update, remove, etc.) with specific verbs and resources, making it clear that this tool handles collection operations. It differentiates from sibling tools (mcp.tool.database, mcp.tool.view) by focusing exclusively on collection actions. However, there is no explicit top-level statement like 'Manages ArangoDB collections,' so it slightly misses a clear overarching purpose.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp.tool.database or mcp.tool.view. The only hint is in the schema description: 'Use mcp.help get for explicit unavailable pages for legacy async actions,' which is a narrow fallback. No exclusions or contextual triggers are given.

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