Modify Collection

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether missing optional parameters leave other properties unchanged or reset them. It fails to go beyond what the annotations already convey.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a brief note on optional parameters.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return value or effect on unspecified properties. It meets minimal needs but has gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage (collId, collName, description each described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Modify the properties of a collection' clearly uses a verb and resource, distinguishing it from create, delete, and list siblings. However, it does not differentiate from other update siblings like transkribus_coll_update_metadata or update_tag_defs, which are more specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like transkribus_coll_update_metadata and transkribus_coll_update_tag_defs offer more targeted updates, but the description does not mention when to prefer this generic modify tool.

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