tcg_collection_update

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

Description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) and confirms mutation. No additional behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide, such as error handling or partial update behavior.

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?

Single sentence with ellipsis is concise but borderline too brief. No structural issues, but could benefit from brief parameter grouping.

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?

Given 13+ parameters with 0% schema description and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. Does not explain partial update semantics or required identifiers, despite having an output schema.

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 0%; description only mentions 'cost basis, notes, status, ...' which vaguely hints at parameters but fails to explain all fields, formats (e.g., dates, currencies), or that card_id is required.

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?

Clearly states it updates mutable fields on a collection card, listing examples like cost basis, notes, and status. Distinguishes from sibling tools such as add, remove, and search.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use (update existing cards) versus siblings. Lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., card must exist) or when not to use, but context from siblings clarifies the use case.

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