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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the key behavioral trait that it is a partial update ('Any subset; omitted fields are left alone'). This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful context. The description is consistent with annotations (no contradiction).

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 two sentences long, front-loads the key actions, and contains no filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (4 parameters, 1 required, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present), the description covers the essential behavior. It mentions the three modifiable fields and the partial update nature. The required collection_id and its ownership constraint are in the schema. The description is sufficient for a task of this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the three fields (title, blurb, published) and the partial update behavior, which is not fully captured in the individual parameter descriptions. This provides a concise overview that helps the agent understand the tool's purpose.

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 uses specific verbs ('rename, rewrite its blurb, or change whether it is published') and clearly identifies the resource (a collection). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like colony_create_collection and colony_delete_collection by stating the partial update behavior ('Any subset; omitted fields are left alone').

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 (when you want to update specific fields of a collection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like colony_create_collection or colony_add_to_collection. No prerequisites or context for deciding between update and other operations are provided.

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