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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Nobody is told about a change.' This extra side-effect information helps the agent reason about consequences. No contradiction 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and then lists the changed settings efficiently. The closing sentence 'Nobody is told about a change' earns its place as a meaningful behavioral note. It is slightly long but well organized.

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 description plus schema covers all parameters and the tool's core behavior. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values or what the response looks like, an agent is left without guidance on what to expect after a successful call. There is also no explicit relationship to sibling tools like close_collecting or reopen_collecting.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters. The description re-expresses several parameters in plain language ('day collecting stops' for closes_on, 'questions people are asked' for questions), which adds readability but no materially new information beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Changes') and a specific resource ('the settings the organiser can change on the site'), then enumerates exactly which settings: closing date, questions, allowed media, and button choice. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like close_collecting, reopen_collecting, or book_status.

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 context is clear: use this tool when the organiser needs to modify collection settings. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like close_collecting, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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