patch_collections_by_id

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent; the description adds the PATCH method and the update semantics without contradicting those hints. It does not go beyond them to describe side effects, partial-update behavior, or permissions, but with the annotation coverage this is an adequate middle score.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose statement, the exact endpoint, and a minimal two-argument breakdown. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler.

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 simple update tool with an output schema and safety-related annotations, the description covers the essential call contract: target id, payload location, and a discovery path for body fields. It could be more complete by stating partial-update semantics or explicitly routing to sibling tools, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It identifies id as a path parameter and body as the request payload, and critically tells the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for the expected fields. That compensates well for the opaque additionalProperties body schema, though it does not enumerate concrete fields.

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 names the action ('Update') and target ('api collections'), and includes the explicit HTTP path PATCH /api/collections/{id}, making it easy to distinguish from list_collections, create_collections, and delete_collections_by_id. It does not, however, explain what a collection is or add scope detail that would earn a full 5.

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 intended use is implied by 'Update' and the endpoint, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against sibling collection tools is given. The inline advice to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first is a useful precondition for preparing the body, but it is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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