update_collector_group

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

Annotations already indicate the mutation via readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a permissions requirement, which is useful but does not disclose side effects, whether fields are overwritten or merged, or behavior around openWorldHint/idempotentHint. The description does not contradict 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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action is stated front-loaded, and the permission note is appended efficiently.

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 six-parameter update tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description is minimal. The parameters are covered by the schema, but the description omits any context about what happens on update, merge semantics for custom_properties, or expected response behavior. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a collector group', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_collector_group, get_collector_group, and update_collector, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 only usage guidance is 'requires write permission', which is a permission constraint rather than a when-to-use instruction. No context is given for choosing this tool over alternatives such as create_collector_group or update_collector, nor when updating is appropriate.

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