ruddur_update_heading_collaborator

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

Annotations already state it is mutating and idempotent; the description adds the authorization requirement ('Requires scope: content.manage') and the alias flexibility, which are useful beyond structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No filler or repetition.

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 description covers purpose, key aliases, and scope, but it lacks explicit usage context and return behavior. The schema's body description also includes an unrelated assessmentConfig note that could confuse an agent, leaving some gaps 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?

The schema descriptions are generic, but the description adds concrete body field aliases (userId, collaboratorId, permission, access, accessLevel) and explains that natural top-level fields are accepted. This meaningfully supplements the generic body schema.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Heading collaborator role'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add/remove_heading_collaborator. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name 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 intended use is implied: modify a collaborator's role on a heading. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor a mention of add/remove as alternatives, and the scope requirement is operational rather than a usage guideline.

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