Update collection details such as title, view, sort order, public access, expansion state, or parent collection.
Update an existing collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Collection ID to update | |
| sort | No | Sort order number | |
| view | No | Display view: list, grid, or masonry | |
| title | No | Updated collection name | |
| public | No | Public accessibility | |
| expanded | No | Expand/collapse state | |
| parentId | No | Parent collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that the operation updates an existing collection, implying mutation but not disclosing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens to unspecified fields. The word 'existing' adds a small precondition, but little else.
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 a single sentence with no filler words and front-loads the primary action and object. It is appropriately concise, though it borders on being too sparse, carrying little information beyond what the tool name already implies.
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 mutating tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether the update is partial, how the 'id' parameter is used beyond identification, or what a successful response looks like. The schema covers parameter existence, but not the operational semantics an agent needs.
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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but every parameter is already documented in the schema with its own description. No additional semantic explanation is required from the free-text description.
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 verb and resource: 'Update an existing collection.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_collection, delete_collection, and get_collection by indicating modification of an already-existing resource. It does not, however, enumerate what fields can be updated.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool instead of create_collection or delete_collection, nor does it mention any prerequisites, typical calling context, or whether the update is partial or full replacement. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.