Collaborator: Edit Remote System Configuration

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description says 'Edits parameters' and the tool is an edit operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, implying the tool does not modify state. This is a direct and serious inconsistency.

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 opening sentence is clear and front-loaded, and the post-creation constraint is useful. But the description then duplicates the entire parameter schema verbatim, which adds length without adding information and contributes to the reviewTemplateId inconsistency.

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?

The definition omits return behavior and gives no guidance on what the response looks like. More importantly, the contradictory 'only title and config are editable' note versus the reviewTemplateId parameter leaves a critical ambiguity, and no detail is given about what the config JSON should contain. This is not sufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 four parameters. However, the description's statement that 'Only title and config are editable after creation' directly conflicts with its own parameter list, which includes reviewTemplateId as an editable parameter, leaving the agent uncertain about valid inputs. It also provides no extra detail about the JSON config format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edits') and identifies the exact resource ('parameters of an existing remote system configuration in Collaborator'). It is clearly distinct from creating, deleting, or testing a configuration, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 establishes that this tool is for editing an existing configuration and notes a key constraint: only title and config are editable after creation. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent to create/delete/test siblings when those operations are more appropriate, relying instead on the tool name and context.

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