collection_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that notebook_ids is a 'New complete list' to include, implying replacement rather than incremental updates, and marks fields as optional. But it does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or the effect of omitting notebooks from the list beyond the 'complete list' wording.

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 followed by a compact argument list. Every line carries useful information with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

All three parameters are described, an output schema exists, and the core edit/replacement semantics are communicated, making the tool callable. It is slightly incomplete in lacking explicit alternative-tool routing and more thorough side-effect disclosure, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does. The Args section explains collection_id as a UUID, name as the new optional name, and notebook_ids as the complete replacement list, adding real semantic meaning beyond types and defaults.

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 ('Edit') and identifies the resource ('existing collection') plus the exact mutable aspects: name and list of notebooks. This clearly distinguishes it from collection_create, collection_delete, collection_list, and collection_set_emoji.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when an existing collection's name or notebook membership needs changing. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings like collection_set_emoji or notebook_rename, nor gives any exclusions or conditions for choosing an alternative.

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