Update collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that library_item_ids replaces the order completely and must contain all items to keep. However, it does not clarify that name and description are optional (only update if provided) or describe any side effects or idempotency. The key destructive behavior is covered, but other behavioral traits are missing.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a crucial warning and alternative. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main use case and the critical behavioral nuance of library_item_ids. However, it does not mention that name and description are optional or explain their behavior when omitted. For a 4-parameter tool with one required, this is a minor gap, but overall sufficient for correct usage.

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 already documents each parameter. The description adds significant value for library_item_ids by explaining it replaces the order completely and must contain all items to stay. For name and description, it merely restates the schema. This extra context for the critical parameter raises the score above baseline.

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 renames a collection, changes its description, or reorders books. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning add_books_to_collection and remove_books_from_collection for membership changes, making the scope unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for renaming, description changes, and reordering; use add_books_to_collection and remove_books_from_collection for membership changes. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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