Update Collection Rules

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by noting that the tool 'rebuilds its allow-list from current workspace documents' and 'can change which docs appear in the collection.' However, it does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Annotations indicate non-destructive and non-idempotent, which aligns with the description, so no contradiction.

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 with no wordiness. The action and effect are front-loaded. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the transformation and its impact on documents. It covers the 'why' (changes which docs appear) and the 'how' (rebuilds from current workspace docs). Slightly more detail on return value or confirmation would push to 5.

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 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and restates the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool replaces collection rules and rebuilds the allow-list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_collection' and 'create_collection'. The verb 'Replace' and specific resource 'collection rules' are precise.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies usage for changing collection rules after creation but lacks any context about exclusions or prerequisites.

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