update_collection_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'only updates provided values' which hints at partial update behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the main action. 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 is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what values can be updated, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other collection operations. The context signals show complexity (nested objects, 3 required parameters) that warrants more explanation than provided.

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 three parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'response' parameter accepts partial updates ('only updates provided values'), but doesn't provide additional context about field meanings, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('a response in a collection'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_collection_request' or 'update_collection', which could be confusing in context.

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 'create_collection_response' or other update tools in the sibling list. It mentions 'Acts like PATCH' but doesn't explain when this partial update approach is preferred over full replacements or other methods.

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