update_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the non-obvious negative scope (does not move prompts or change membership), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying what happens to unspecified fields or whether updates are partial, so not 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, zero filler, with the scope constraint ('name or description only') front-loaded before the usage guidance. Every clause 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?

A mutation tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, so return values and safety need no explanation; the description's remaining job is scope, which it covers well. Missing only minor detail such as behavior when optional fields are omitted.

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 100%, so the schema already documents collection_id, name, and description individually. The description's 'name or description only' reinforces that the two string fields are the whole update surface, but adds no format, validation, or partial-update semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Update a collection') and immediately bounds the scope to name/description, which distinguishes it from create_collection, delete_collection, and any membership or prompt-movement operations in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for metadata changes 'rather than reorganization,' giving a clear when-to-use and a when-not-to-use condition. It does not name the alternative tool an agent should reach for when reorganizing, which keeps it from a 5.

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