update_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: this is a mutation operation ('Update'), it performs 'full collection replacement' (not partial), and has a 'maximum size of 20 MB' constraint. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens to existing collection data not included in the replacement.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core action, the second adds critical behavioral constraints. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the replacement nature and size constraint but lacks information about authentication, error responses, side effects, or what constitutes a successful update. Given the complexity of a full collection replacement operation, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'collection' parameter must be complete (full replacement) and has size constraints, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the structured schema.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing collection'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_collection' or 'update_collection_folder', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'patch_collection' or 'create_collection'. It mentions 'full collection replacement' but doesn't explain when this approach is appropriate versus partial updates.

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