Update Collection

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the operation does not change rules or allow-list, which clarifies the scope of the mutation. It does not fully explore open-world side effects, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this additional scope disclosure is valuable.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Rename') and includes a crucial scoping qualifier ('without changing its rules or allow-list'). Every word earns its place; there is zero waste, and the structure is immediately comprehensible.

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 straightforward rename operation, the description is complete. It identifies the exact purpose and the boundary of the operation. Given that an output schema exists and the input schema has full parameter coverage, the description does not need to elaborate return values or parameter details. The presence of sibling tools and annotations rounds out the context.

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%; all three parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter syntax or format details, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'without changing rules or allow-list' indirectly clarifies that the 'name' parameter is the only changed field, but this is already implied.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename') and clearly identifies the resource ('existing AFFiNE sidebar collection'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly scoping the action to renaming only, and clarifying that rules and allow-list remain unchanged. This unambiguously differentiates it from update_collection_rules and other collection mutations.

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 the tool: when you need to rename a collection while preserving its rules and allow-list. It hints at the alternative (update_collection_rules) by stating what this tool does NOT do, but does not explicitly name that alternative. This provides clear context without an explicit exclusion or direct sibling comparison.

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