Put collections admin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: for a PUT operation it never says whether it replaces the entire collection set, whether omitted collections are dropped, or what permissions are required — the exact questions an agent needs answered before overwriting org collections.

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?

Six words with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a bare restatement, and there is no second sentence carrying the information the first one lacks.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation and no annotation detail requires far more than this. The description leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call — what goes in json_body, what cipher_id refers to — which is the core completeness failure here.

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% across four parameters (cipher_id required, plus form, params, json_body all with no titles or descriptions), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It mentions none of them — the required cipher_id and the opaque json_body are completely unexplained anywhere in the definition.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Put collections admin' becomes 'Set collections via admin path.' It gives no indication of what a collection payload looks like or which admin collection operation this is (create, replace, update membership), and with siblings like put_collections_update, put_collections2_update, post_collections_admin and put_organization_collection_update, the agent cannot tell them apart.

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 at all, despite a dense cluster of near-identical collection tools in the sibling list. The phrase 'via admin path' hints at an admin-only variant but never states the condition that selects it over the non-admin PUT tools or over the POST admin variant.

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