update_collection

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by advising to read the GET or /schema endpoint to see expected fields, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention side effects, error behavior, or return format, so the transparency is limited.

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 structured: purpose line, endpoint, then arg description. It front-loads the purpose and includes the necessary technical details without fluff. The only redundancy is that 'Update Collection.' restates the tool name, but it's brief and acceptable.

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?

The description lacks crucial context about when to use this tool versus update_collection_by_id, which is a direct sibling with a similar name. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, authentication, or any operational nuances. While output schema exists, the missing differentiation and operational details leave the agent under-informed for correct tool selection and 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?

The schema provides only a generic 'body' object with additionalProperties, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the body is a request payload and instructs to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover fields. This gives the agent a clear path to understand the parameter, which is valuable given the opaque schema.

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 'Update Collection.' which is a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool update_collection_by_id. The inclusion of the HTTP method and endpoint provides some technical specificity, but the purpose remains vague about whether this is a bulk update or a general collection update, making it ambiguous which tool to select.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_collection_by_id. The only usage hint is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint, which is about how to construct the request, not about tool selection. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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