Update Collection

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation with open-world behavior and no idempotency guarantee. The description adds useful behavioral scope by saying the tool only renames the collection and leaves its rules and allow-list untouched, which is the key side-effect boundary an agent needs.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states the action and the key boundary immediately, which is appropriate for a simple update tool.

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?

For a simple rename mutation, the description, annotations, complete schema coverage, and output schema together give the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential about the operation's scope or side effects 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%, so the schema already defines collectionId, name, and workspaceId. The description implies that the relevant parameters are the collection identifier and new name, but it does not add format, constraints, or workspace-selection guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rename an existing AFFiNE sidebar collection.' It also distinguishes the operation from adjacent operations by clarifying that rules and allow-list are not changed, which helps separate it from update_collection_rules and collection membership tools.

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 description gives clear usage context: use this to rename an existing collection, and do not use it to change rules or allow-list membership. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools, but the scope exclusion is explicit enough to route the agent away from update_collection_rules and add/remove doc operations.

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