update_collection_by_id

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that the body schema is not self-contained and must be discovered dynamically from GET or /schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 summary, the HTTP endpoint, then a brief args list. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrasing 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' is slightly awkwardly appended to the body arg.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description doesn't clarify the distinction between this tool and the sibling 'update_collection', nor does it address edge cases like invalid IDs or partial updates. The guidance to read GET/schema mitigates but doesn't fully close these gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by labeling 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as a request payload whose expected fields must be discovered via GET or /schema. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema types, especially given the body's open 'additionalProperties' definition.

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 Collection' with the specific HTTP endpoint 'PUT /api/v3/collection/{id}', making it obvious this is an update-by-id operation. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'update_collection', so it doesn't fully achieve a 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 description provides preparatory guidance by telling the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to see expected fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'update_collection' or 'get_collection_by_id', so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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