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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses PATCH-style semantics ("only the fields you pass are changed"), which is a real trait beyond the schema, but it omits permissions/auth needs, how slug uniqueness conflicts are handled, and undo/irreversibility for a mutation. Some value, substantial gaps.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the core behavior (partial update) is front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, two sentences is thin. Missing auth requirements, slug-uniqueness behavior, the order vs Reorder_Collections relationship, and any note on failure/partial-success semantics leave the agent under-equipped.

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 56%, so roughly half the parameters are described in the schema. The description only adds the meta-rule that unpassed fields are untouched; it gives no meaning for the undocumented params (e.g. name, order, description, content_kind) and does not clarify the order/reorder distinction.

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?

"Update fields on an existing collection" gives a specific verb (update) and resource (collection), and the second sentence clarifies it is a partial update. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like Reorder_Collections (despite an `order` param here) or Update_SEO_Fields, leaving some ambiguity about which update tool to pick.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. Given that Reorder_Collections exists and this tool also accepts an `order` parameter, the agent gets no help deciding between them, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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