Update Collection

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful PATCH semantics: only supplied fields are changed, which prevents agents from assuming full-object replacement. It also discloses the 'owned active' constraint, which is not apparent from the schema. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the annotations already cover safety as non-destructive and writable.

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 that directly states the operation and its key semantic. No filler or redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 PATCH operation with four flat parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context (partial update, ownership/status requirement). It does not mention what the response contains, but the tool is straightforward and the annotations cover the write/non-destructive nature. Slightly more detail about return values could push it to 5, but 4 is appropriate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The statement 'Only supplied fields change' is essential for interpreting the optional parameters (name, sort_order, description): omitting them means leave unchanged. This is not inferable from the schema alone. The parameter names are self-explanatory, so no further per-field elaboration is needed.

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 verb ('update') and the resource ('owned active Collection'), and adds the critical distinction of 'Partially update' and 'Only supplied fields change'. This separates it from other update tools by specifying the partial/PATCH behavior and the ownership/status precondition.

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 'Partially update an owned active Collection' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to modify fields on a collection without replacing the entire object. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'archive_collection' for state changes or 'create_collection' for new collections, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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