update_collector

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds 'requires write permission' and lists updatable fields, but does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action, then states the permission and the scoped fields. No word is wasted, and the structure allows quick parsing.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description does not fully round out the operation. It omits whether partial updates are allowed, whether absent fields are left untouched, and when to use get_collector or update_collector_group instead. The schema covers parameters, but the overall usage context remains incomplete.

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 each parameter already has a clear explanation such as 'Enable automatic failback' or 'New collector group ID'. The description's field enumeration mirrors the schema without adding deeper meaning; it earns the baseline 3 for not detracting from the 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Update a collector', and enumerates the mutable aspects: group, description, failback, or escalation chain. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_collector_group and delete_collector, which target different entities or operations.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. The only qualifier, 'requires write permission', is a permission prerequisite, not usage direction. An agent is left to infer when this update is appropriate.

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