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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: links are re-resolved from the design's pages, and the change is recorded in version history. It does not say what happens to fields omitted from the call (partial vs full update), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the changeable fields, then side effects. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 10-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers fields, the max_items sentinel, link re-resolution and versioning, while annotations cover reversibility. What's missing is partial-update semantics — whether omitted fields are preserved or reset — which matters for a tool where only 2 of 10 params are required.

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 only 40%, and the description does compensate by naming all six undescribed knobs (heading→title, layout, placement, columns, max links→max_items, slug pattern) and giving the non-obvious '0 = all' semantics for max_items that the schema's bare minimum/maximum cannot convey. However it uses plain-language labels rather than parameter names and skips the update semantics of the optional variation_id, so it stops short of full coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Change') and resource, then enumerates exactly which collection facets are mutable: heading, layout, placement, columns, max links, slug pattern. The mutating verb plus enumerated fields cleanly separates it from create_dynamic_collection, remove_dynamic_collection and preview_dynamic_collection.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this over preview_dynamic_collection (preview first), set_collection_item_display (per-item tweaks) or update_collection_item. Nothing says whether a collection must already exist or whether the caller should fetch IDs via list_dynamic_collections first — that pointer exists only in the schema, not the description.

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