putCollection

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations. It explains that missing ID values cause removal and recreation, mentions async updates with Prefer header, size limit (100 MB), and copying behavior (remove IDs to copy). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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 well-structured with clear sections (note, bullet points) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is lengthy and includes extensive detail that could be external. Every sentence adds value, but conciseness is slightly reduced due to the volume of information.

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 complexity of replacing a collection (nested schema, multiple behaviors) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers core behavior, async, size limits, ID preservation, and copying. External references are provided for full schema details, which is appropriate.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, such as the requirement to include ID values in the request body to preserve items and the note about copying by removing IDs. While the schema already describes parameters like collectionId and Prefer, the description clarifies how the collection object's IDs affect behavior. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description compensates with these behavioral notes.

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 purpose: 'Replaces the contents of a collection using the Postman Collection v2.1.0 schema format.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like createCollection (which creates new collections) and updateCollectionRequest (which updates individual requests) by focusing on full replacement. The description also highlights critical ID-preservation behavior, making the purpose very specific.

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 detailed context for using the tool, including async via Prefer header, ID preservation/copying behavior, and size limit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like updateCollectionRequest or duplicateCollection. The lack of explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations keeps it from a 5.

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