collect_context_updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data. The description nonetheless adds real context beyond that: it asserts explicitly that the call "changes and proposes nothing" and outlines the downstream commit path, which tells the agent this is a safe pre-read in a multi-step flow. It stops short of describing return volume or pagination, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the payload enumeration, then the workflow, then the disambiguation. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description's remaining burden is workflow placement and differentiation from siblings — both delivered. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the single project_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_projects. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (no format, scoping or validation notes), so the baseline 3 applies with the schema doing the work.

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?

States a specific verb ("Gather") and enumerates the exact resource set returned: context_version, tasks, events, agent reports, decisions, evidence artifacts, sync status and context file locations. It explicitly separates itself from validate_context and positions itself in the patch workflow, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_context or propose_context_patch.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("before writing a ContextPatch"), a follow-on sequence (propose_context_patch then commit_context_patch), and a named alternative with its selecting condition ("To only check integrity use validate_context"). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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