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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by scoping the mutation: only tags and status are replaced, collected data is untouched, and a tag change can fire the configured workflow. That side effect and the 'partial replace' framing are genuinely new information. It still omits what happens on a version mismatch or whether the operation is reversible.

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 action, followed by scope and side effect; no filler. The only friction is the language mismatch with the English tool names and siblings.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with five undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the mutation's footprint and the workflow side effect but leaves concurrency behavior and failure modes unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to call this safely.

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 0% across 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate: it names 'tags' and 'status' but never explains 'id', 'row', or the allowed status values. 'Avec sa version' hints at optimistic concurrency control but leaves the semantics of a stale version unstated.

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: replacing the 'tags' and 'status' of a row in a collection, which is concrete and actionable. It does not differentiate itself from near siblings such as update_record, update_collection, or set_collection_state, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to call this instead of update_record or set_collection_state, and no prerequisites (permissions, row existence, workflow state) are mentioned. The note about a new tag triggering a workflow is a side effect, not selection guidance.

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