Add or remove collection cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the static-collection constraint and the need for product_card_ids, but omits critical details: error handling (e.g., duplicates), idempotency, partial failures, permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and a key requirement. No filler or redundant information. Every word contributes.

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 tool has three parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and a key requirement, but misses operational context: return format, error conditions, and idempotency. It is adequate for triggering an invocation but not fully self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a slight clarification by expressing 'product_card_ids' as 'array of product card UUIDs', but largely repeats what the schema's example already conveys. It doesn't explain nested structure or enums beyond schema 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 states the exact action: 'Add product cards to a STATIC collection or remove them from it.' It specifies the resource (collection cards) and clearly differentiates from siblings like update_collection, which handle collection metadata. The mention of 'STATIC' adds precision.

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 makes it obvious when to use: whenever you need to add or remove cards from a static collection. It also implies a prerequisite by stating 'Requires product_card_ids'. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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