update_collector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the ETag fetch, merge, and optimistic locking behavior. This goes beyond a simple 'update' statement, though it could further detail error scenarios or permissions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief, informative explanation of the mechanism. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 a two-parameter update tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the operation's workflow. The optimistic locking context is valuable, and no additional details seem necessary.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), including an example for fields_json. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a collector's configuration' with a specific verb and resource, and the read-modify-write pattern adds clarity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_hosted_collector, delete_collector, and get_collector.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing collector through the read-modify-write pattern, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like create_hosted_collector for new collectors. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are given.

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