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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that omitted fields are left unchanged (partial update behavior), which is valuable beyond annotation data. No contradictions 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, front-loaded with actions, zero wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the tool's capabilities and clarifying partial update semantics.

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 params, all documented, has output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose and behavior. Mentions partial updates. Minor gap: does not restate prerequisites (e.g., collection ownership) but those are in the schema.

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% with clear descriptions per parameter. The description maps high-level actions ('rename' → title, 'rewrite blurb' → description, 'published' → is_public) but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('rename', 'rewrite', 'change') tied to the resource 'collection' and distinguishes from siblings like `colony_create_collection` and `colony_delete_collection` by clearly focusing on updates.

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 implicitly states the tool is for updating a collection's title, blurb, or publication status, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or provide usage exclusions. The sibling tools list is long, and no direct comparison is given.

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