collections_items_update_items

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 discloses the key behavioral trait that updates are saved as drafts, but it omits other relevant details such as whether the published version remains unchanged, side effects of slug updates, or required permissions. It adds some value beyond the name but not enough.

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 with a clear verb and resource, no filler, and front-loaded information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite a moderate-complexity nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), behavior on non-existent items, or the full implications of 'as drafts.' An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema, which itself has coverage gaps.

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?

The description does not mention any parameter specifics. Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters like the structure of the request object. The nested schema provides some field descriptions, but the tool-level description adds nothing to help the agent understand the parameters.

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 specifies the action (update), the target (existing items in a CMS collection), and the mode ('as drafts'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like collections_items_update_items_live. This is a specific verb+resource+mode that leaves little ambiguity.

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 that this tool is for updating items without publishing (as drafts), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like the live update tool. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or alternative directions.

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