Edit Org Collection

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, meaning it's a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it mutates collection metadata only and returns the updated summary, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like impacts on existing shares or permissions.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key constraints. It front-loads the action and is free of unnecessary words.

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 the simplicity of the tool (rename operation, 3 required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its return value. It does not explain error cases but is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool renames an existing organization-scoped collection, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keychain_create_org_collection and keychain_delete_org_collection by explicitly stating it renames an existing 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?

The description implies when to use (to rename a collection) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools. However, since this is the only edit tool for org collections, the context is clear enough.

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