update_collection

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. 'Edit' implies mutation, but nothing is said about permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, whether the change is reversible, or what happens to fields not listed. The status enum it quotes is already present in the schema, so it adds no behavioral disclosure.

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?

One tight sentence with no padding, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's breadth.

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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete schema coverage needs considerably more than a single clause. Partial-update semantics and the relationship to set_status/update are the most important missing pieces.

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 60% across 10 parameters, and the description mentions just one (status), whose enum values the schema already documents. The nine remaining parameters (docs, link, tags, agent, owner, title, types, summary) get no explanation beyond their inline schema text, and the undocumented ones get nothing at all.

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+resource: 'Edit a collection README's details.' An agent can tell it edits an existing collection rather than creating one. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling set_status, which appears to also modify status, or from update.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. The description never says when to prefer this tool over set_status (for status changes) or update, both of which are plausible siblings for the same target resource. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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