update_collection

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'modifies' adds little beyond that. It lists what properties can be changed but does not disclose side effects, permission needs, or behavior when optional fields are omitted (e.g., whether they remain unchanged). Slightly above minimal given annotation coverage.

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?

Efficiently structured: one opening sentence, bullet list of use cases, then Args with inline descriptions, and a Returns line. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the return value description is sufficient. All parameters are explained, use cases are covered, and the tool's purpose is clear. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., collection must exist) or that other properties not listed remain unchanged. Still, comprehensive for a moderate-complexity 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. Args section adds meaningful context: 'name' is 'Optional new name', 'color' is 'Optional new hex color code (e.g. #FF0000)'. This substantially aids an agent in understanding parameter usage beyond the schema titles.

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?

Clearly states 'Modifies an existing collection's properties' with a specific verb and resource. Lists concrete use cases (rename, update description, change color coding, refresh metadata) that directly address the tool's function, distinguishing it from siblings like create_collection and delete_collection.

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?

Provides explicit list of when to use (rename, update description, etc.) via a bulleted list. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the use cases are clear and sufficient for an agent to decide. Lacks exclusionary guidance but still strong.

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