update_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It meaningfully discloses that the update is partial, indicating only provided fields will be changed and omitted ones remain untouched. This goes beyond the basic 'update' verb and provides key behavioral nuance, though it does not mention failure modes or return payload.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, target, and update mode efficiently, providing excellent scannability for an AI agent.

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 tool's simplicity, 2 fully covered parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, how to identify the resource, and the partial nature of the update. It does not describe response behavior, but this is not critical for correct invocation and the description is appropriately sized.

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% for both parameters, with the data parameter already listing common fields. The description's 'partial update' wording reinforces the intended semantics but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 the action ('Update'), the specific resource ('collection') and the method of identification ('by id'). It also explicitly notes 'partial update', which distinguishes it from create/delete/get operations and aligns perfectly with the tool's function.

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 phrase 'existing collection' implies this tool should only be used for resources that already exist, providing clear context for when to invoke it. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous for a CRUD tool with siblings like create_collection and delete_collection.

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