putCollection

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the 100 MB size limit, details what happens when ID values are omitted (removes existing items and recreates with new IDs), provides copying instructions, and mentions async response behavior. Annotations cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description supplements with practical constraints and outcomes.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes a lengthy note section with bullet points that could be streamlined. While informative, some details (like protocol profile behavior reference) might be excessive for a concise tool description, making it slightly verbose for an agent's quick understanding.

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 (destructive replacement operation with nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description does well by covering key behavioral aspects like size limits, ID handling, and async options. It could improve by mentioning error conditions or response formats, but overall provides sufficient context for safe invocation.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema documents parameters well. The description adds some semantics by explaining the importance of including ID values in the request body and the async 'Prefer' header usage, but doesn't elaborate on the complex 'collection' object structure beyond referencing the schema format. It compensates partially but not fully for the coverage gap.

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 specifies the verb ('replaces'), resource ('contents of a collection'), and format requirements, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'createCollection' or 'duplicateCollection' which have different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (replacing collection contents) and mentions the async update option. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'updateSpecProperties' or 'syncCollectionWithSpec' from the sibling list, which could help differentiate use cases more precisely.

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