update_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It says 'update' but does not disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It should at least mention permissions or side effects, and given the sibling tools, it could clarify scope. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it without additional assumptions.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds the specific mention of field definitions, which is one of the more complex parameters, providing marginal but useful emphasis. Baseline is 3, and the extra specificity lifts it slightly.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (collection's settings), and names one of the updatable aspects (field definitions). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools as clearly as it could, but it is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation.

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?

Provides implied usage (updating settings) but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. The sibling list includes create_collection, get_collection, and many note-related tools, but the description does not help an agent choose among them for collection modifications.

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