Put organization collection update

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 safety profile is known. The description adds that the update covers rename and reassignment of users/groups, which is useful context, but it does not disclose whether this replaces the full collection state versus partial update, what permissions are required, or any side effects. With annotations covering the basics, a 3 reflects moderate added value.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that names the action and example fields with zero wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for conciseness, though it borders on under-specification for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation endpoint with 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, the description is too thin. It does not explain request shape, what is replaced, permission requirements, or how it differs from other collection-update endpoints.

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% and there are 5 parameters with opaque names (form, params, json_body, col_id, org_id). The description only implies that fields like name, user assignments, and group assignments belong in the body, but does not explain any of the parameters, including how org_id/col_id relate to the request or how form/params/json_body are used. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a collection', and the parenthetical adds concrete update types (rename, reassign users/groups). It does not distinguish this PUT endpoint from the many sibling collection-update variants (e.g. vaultwarden_post_organization_collection_update, vaultwarden_put_collections_update, vaultwarden_put_collections2_update), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling collection tools, nor any prerequisites, permission requirements, or exclusions. The parenthetical hints at rename/reassignment but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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