akb_create_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and covers idempotency, the duplicate-collection outcome ({created: false}), the fact that the collection is empty, and the required role. It does not detail error cases or the success response explicitly, but the core behavior is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first defines purpose, the second states behavioral guarantees, and the third gives the authorization requirement. The phrasing is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler.

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 simple operation, complete parameter schema, and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, duplicate behavior, and permissions. The only minor gap is that the successful-creation return value is implied rather than explicitly stated, but it is easily inferred from the idempotency sentence.

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 all parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema; it neither clarifies summary usage nor the _vault_skill_ack contract beyond the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence states the action (Create), the object (empty collection/folder), and the location (inside a vault), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like akb_create_vault and akb_create_table. The word 'empty' also sets precise expectations about what this operation does not do.

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 the usage context—creating a folder in a vault—and adds a clear prerequisite ('Writer or higher role'), but it never names alternatives or says when not to use this tool. An agent must infer the boundary against akb_create_vault and akb_put.

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