update_collections

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond a simple 'update' by explaining that the settings control whether new collection movies are added and searched, and where they get placed. However, it does not disclose overwrite semantics, permission requirements, idempotence, or what happens to existing movies.

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 sentence and front-loads the main verb and resource, but the colon list is clunky and forces the reader to parse which toggles map to which parameters. It is concise in length but not well structured, so it sits at an adequate rather than polished level.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and seven parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified: it never mentions the required collection_ids parameter, omits minimum_availability, and says nothing about return values or failure behavior. An agent would need to inspect the schema heavily to understand how to call this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level mapping of the settings (monitored, monitor_movies, search_on_add, quality_profile_id, root_folder_path) but does not add meaning not already in the schema. It omits minimum_availability entirely, but the schema covers it.

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 identifies the tool as updating collections in bulk and lists the key editable settings (monitoring, add/search behavior, profile, root folder). It distinguishes itself from list_collections and movie-specific tools, though the phrasing 'monitoring, whether new collection movies are added and searched' is grammatically awkward.

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?

The phrase 'in bulk' implies the tool is for updating multiple collections at once, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention constraints like 'collections must already exist' or that single-collection updates should also use this.

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