update_collection

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 collection information' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects on related resources, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of informativeness, there's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word ('Update', 'collection', 'information') contributes directly to the core message, making it front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating collection information' entails, what parameters are available, what the operation returns, or how it differs from similar tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the name 'update_collection'. It doesn't explain what 'collectionId', 'name', 'description', or 'color' represent, their constraints, or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_collection'. It specifies the resource ('collection') but lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated or how this differs from similar tools like 'update_document' or 'batch_update_documents'. While it indicates a mutation operation, it doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from sibling 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing collection), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'batch_update_documents' for multiple updates or 'update_document' for document-level changes. The agent receives no contextual cues about appropriate use cases.

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