Modify collection details in Outline wiki, including name, description, and color, to organize and categorize documents effectively.
Update collection information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collectionId | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| color | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. It lacks critical context for a mutation tool with zero 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?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
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, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral aspects like error conditions. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.
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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or their meanings, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'collectionId', 'name', 'description', or 'color' represent or how they affect the update operation.
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 'Update collection information' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('collection information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what specific information can be updated and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_document' or 'batch_update_documents' that also perform updates on different resources.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing collection), exclusions (e.g., not for batch operations), or comparison to siblings like 'create_collection' for initial creation or 'batch_update_documents' for multiple document updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.