Update a request

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

The description clearly explains the PATCH-like behavior, which is critical for understanding that omitted fields are not reset. It also states the limitation about folder changes. Annotations declare idempotentHint=true (consistent with PATCH) and destructiveHint=false; the description aligns well, adding behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.

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 and structured: a clear primary sentence followed by a list of notes. It front-loads the core action and then presents important caveats in an easy-to-parse list. No unnecessary fluff, though the note about the collection ID could be more prominent.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters, the description provides complete, necessary context: it clarifies the ID requirement, PATCH semantics, and the folder limitation. Since there is no output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it covers the main operational traps, making it sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 defines every parameter. The description adds context for specific parameters like collectionId (explaining the ID vs UID distinction), but does not elaborate on the update semantics for each field (e.g., how auth or headers are handled). Thus, it adds some value beyond schema, but the schema carries most of the weight.

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 'Updates a request in a collection', clearly identifying the verb (update) and the resource (request within a collection). It distinguishes itself from createCollectionRequest and other update tools, but does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with them. The title aligns well.

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 key usage guidance: it specifies that collectionId must be the collection ID not the collection UID (with an illustrative example), and notes that folder changes are not supported, and that it acts as a PATCH (only updates provided values). However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives like createCollectionRequest or putCollection, but the guidance on scope is useful.

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