update_collection_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a constraint ('Cannot change request folder') but does not cover other critical aspects such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core action and a key constraint without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the constraint into a second sentence for clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, response expectations, and usage context. For a tool that modifies data, this level of documentation is inadequate and could lead to misuse.

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 all parameters ('collection_id', 'request_id', 'request') and their types. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'request' object's fields (name, method, url) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Update a request in a collection') and specifies the resource ('request'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_collection_folder' or 'update_collection_response', which also update items in collections, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance by stating 'Cannot change request folder,' which implies a constraint but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_collection' or 'update_collection_folder'. No explicit usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with little direction.

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