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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior beyond that: existing rows retain stale keys until edited, which warns the agent about post-update data state. It omits auth/permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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, no filler, and the destructive full-replacement constraint is front-loaded with the follow-up consequence immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is needed, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. Combined with the replacement semantics and stale-key warning, the description is nearly complete; only the individual parameter meanings are left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that the 'schema' parameter is the full field list (replace, not merge). The required 'slug' and optional 'site_id' parameters get no explanation of format or scope in either place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('replace a collection's whole field list'), and the word 'whole' makes the full-replacement semantics explicit, distinguishing it from the sibling update_collection_row which edits individual rows. An agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition/context by pointing to get_collection for retrieving the current field list, which implies the read-before-write workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a merge alternative, but the routing context is solid.

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