update_test_collection

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

The description reveals a material behavioral detail beyond annotations: only provided fields are updated, and omitted fields remain unchanged. This clarifies the patch semantics and prevents accidental overwrites. It complements the annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, both substantive. The first states the action and partial-update behavior; the second gives targeted procedural advice. No fluff, no repetition of schema content, and key information is front-loaded.

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 a straightforward update operation with a fully described schema including enum values, the description covers the essential missing context: partial update semantics and the prerequisite call. No critical call-critical information is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter with details. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. This is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and target: 'Update test collection metadata'. This clearly identifies the operational scope and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_test_collection, create_test_collection, or update_test_case, without needing to inspect the schema.

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 provides clear pre-use guidance: 'Use get_test_collection first to see current values.' This implies when to use the tool—when you know what you want to change and need current values first. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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