update_collective

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific limitation about renaming, which is extra context beyond the annotations. It does not mention any other side effects, but for a simple update operation this is adequate.

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 concise, with no redundant information. It uses a clear imperative structure and includes a helpful caveat about renaming in a single sentence.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and the unsupported rename case. Since there is no output schema, return values are not required. It is sufficiently complete for an update operation on a simple resource.

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 descriptions cover id and emoji but not editPermissionLevel or sharePermissionLevel (50% coverage). The description mentions they are for adjusting permission levels but provides no details on valid values or meaning. This leaves some ambiguity for those parameters.

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 tool's action: changing a Collective's emoji or adjusting edit/share permission levels. It also explicitly notes that renaming is not supported, which distinguishes it from potential rename operations and provides precise scope.

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?

It instructs the user to provide the id and any fields to change, which is a clear usage pattern. The note about renaming not being supported serves as a negative guideline, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other update tools (though context with sibling tools makes this implicit).

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