Discogs: update collection item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' but does not mention whether fields not provided are preserved, whether this overwrites existing data, if special permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly effective.

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 has 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks important context about update semantics (e.g., merge vs replace), prerequisites, or response behavior. A more complete description would include such details, especially for a mutation tool.

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 only 20% (only notes has a description). The tool description adds context by naming 'rating and notes' but does not explain folder_id, release_id, or instance_id beyond their self-evident names. The rating constraint (0-5) is only in the schema, not reinforced in the description. It provides some value but does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'update' and identifies the resource as a 'collection item instance' with the fields 'rating and/or notes', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_collection and remove_from_collection. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for modifying existing collection items, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide preconditions like needing an instance_id from get_collection_items. It gives no exclusions or alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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