update_collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'admin only' (permissions) but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., replacing fields schema), what happens to existing data, error conditions, or response format. For a complex mutation tool with 11 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with essential information ('Update an existing collection'). Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. It efficiently communicates core purpose and a key constraint ('admin only').

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks information about behavioral consequences (e.g., schema replacement with 'fields'), error handling, return values, and detailed usage context. The 'admin only' hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for other 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between parameters like 'fields' replacement behavior). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('an existing collection in PocketBase'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_collection' (new vs existing) and 'delete_collection' (update vs remove). However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated (name, type, fields, rules, etc.), which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance: 'admin only' indicates a permission requirement, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_collection' or 'update_record'. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites beyond admin status are mentioned, leaving significant gaps in usage context.

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