Update a Hex collection's name, description, or sharing settings. Modify collection metadata and access permissions through the Hex API.
Edit a collection (name, description, sharing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| sharing | No | Sharing upsert config | |
| description | No | ||
| collectionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'edit' but not whether this is a partial update (omitted fields preserved) or a replace, whether permissions are required, whether sharing changes are reversible, or what the response contains — significant gaps 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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 25% schema coverage, and a nested sharing object, this mutation tool needs more than one parenthetical line. Key details about partial-update semantics and the sharing config are absent, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 coverage is only 25%. The description lists name, description, and sharing, mirroring three of the four properties, but adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain the required collectionId or the opaque 'Sharing upsert config' nested object, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Names a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('collection') plus the editable fields, which is clearly distinct from create-collection, get-collection, and list-collections. However it does not explicitly state what separates it from its siblings, so it falls short of the top band.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing collectionId), and no reference to alternative tools such as create-collection for new collections. The agent must infer the calling context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.