update_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the ADMIN authorization requirement, which is useful, but it fails to explain whether the patch is a partial merge or a full replacement, what happens to existing fields, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. The two sentences provide almost no structural information, and the description fails to earn its place as a useful guide, making it more underspecification than effective conciseness.

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 tool with a free-form patch object and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct the patch, what fields are valid, or whether the update is additive or destructive. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the total lack of input guidance.

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 0% and the description does not describe any parameters. The agent is left with no clue about the meaning of 'patch' or 'collection_id' beyond their raw types, and the arbitrary additionalProperties in patch makes this even more ambiguous.

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 'Update a collection' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'update_collection', providing no additional specificity beyond the name. It does not mention what aspects of a collection can be updated, making it a tautology rather than a clarifying statement.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_collection or delete_collection. The only extra note, 'Requires ADMIN', is a prerequisite, not usage context, so the agent gets no direction on tool selection.

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