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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: omitted fields remain unchanged, and setting is_public=true generates a public URL while false unshares. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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-load the action, list the updatable fields, and provide key usage instructions. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a 9-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the main semantics, partial update behavior, and the public URL side effect. It doesn't address error cases or return values, but the annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, making the description adequate.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining the partial-update semantics ('only provide fields you want to change') and clarifying the sharing behavior, which is not obvious from individual parameter 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 clearly states the tool updates a collection's name, icon, description, budget, or sharing status. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear list of updatable attributes, distinguishing it from create/delete/list siblings.

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 provides clear context that this is for updating existing collections and explicitly instructs to include only changed fields, defining partial-update usage. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the purpose clarity makes the use case obvious.

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