update_collection

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: that the collection key is unchanged, items and sub-collections stay put, and that stale versions are refused. This is useful but does not cover every edge case (e.g., invalid parent_key).

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a safety note, and a clean bulleted parameter breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, and it is fully front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, edge cases (empty string, omit behavior), and versioning constraints. It does not describe return values or error conditions beyond stale version, but given the lack of output schema and annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 must compensate. It thoroughly explains name, parent_key (including the empty-string to top-level behavior), and version (stale refusal). The 'key' parameter is not explicitly described but is self-evident from the tool name and required field.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Rename and/or move (reparent) a collection, in place.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_collection, delete_collection, and update_item. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains when to use the tool (rename/move), how parameters behave, and that at least one of name/parent_key must be given. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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