trmnl_update_room_booking_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: omitted keys retain their value, and resource_ids replaces the entire set — critical for avoiding accidental data loss in a non-idempotent PATCH. The PATCH verb and remote-state warning reinforce the annotation profile without contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then merge semantics, then the endpoint, then the safety warning. Every line carries information; the scope caveat is the only slightly boilerplate element.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the highest-risk semantics (partial update and set replacement) but leaves the per-field meaning of the body undocumented. An agent could call it correctly for resource_ids changes but would be guessing on the display/boolean fields.

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 only 33%, and the body fields (name, display_layout, collection_type, show_booking_qr, show_company_logo) have no descriptions anywhere. The description compensates partially by explaining the key omission and resource_ids replacement semantics, but the remaining body fields stay undocumented.

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?

'Change a calendar collection' gives a specific verb and resource, and the subsequent PATCH path pins down exactly which entity is mutated. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like trmnl_update_room_booking_calendar, but the resource noun 'collection' is distinct enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 statement of when to use this versus trmnl_create_room_booking_collection, trmnl_delete_room_booking_collection, or the calendar-update sibling. The only guidance is a generic 'Run only within the user-authorized scope', which is a safety caveat rather than a routing rule.

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