update_collection_roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a permission requirement ('requires EDITOR role'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by 'update' but not explicit), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a key constraint. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete schema coverage (50%), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, error handling), parameter usage beyond basics, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies roles, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 50%, with parameters 'collectionId' and 'operations' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema. Since the schema covers the basics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap or provide additional context like format examples.

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 ('collection roles'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_workspace_roles' or 'get_collection_roles', but the specificity is sufficient for understanding what the tool does.

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 a prerequisite ('requires EDITOR role'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_workspace_roles' or how it differs from 'get_collection_roles' (which might be for viewing rather than updating). Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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