Update collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains partial updates via `data`, the special requirement to pass the full `fields` array for schema changes, and warns that existing field ids must be preserved to keep data. This is valuable behavioral context, though it stops short of mentioning permissions or response details.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the most important usage caveat, then acceptable update targets. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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 an update operation with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation details: target identifier, partial payload semantics, schema update requirement, and which collection aspects can be changed. It does not explain error behavior or permissions, but it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that `data` is a partial payload, that schema changes require the full fields array, and that rules, indexes, and options are also updatable.

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 ('Update an existing collection'), targets a clear resource (collection), and adds the key distinction of addressing it by id or name. This sets it apart from sibling tools like create_collection and delete_collection without ambiguity.

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 makes it clear this tool is for updating existing collections, which implies it is not for creating, deleting, or querying collections. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough to guide correct tool selection.

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