update_collection

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that passing 'fields' or 'indexes' replaces existing definitions, not the '__unset__' semantics for rules, not permission requirements, and not whether the change is reversible. For a 9-parameter mutation tool this is a significant 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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its brevity is efficient but borders on under-specification for a mutation tool with nine parameters.

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 an output schema present the return value need not be explained, but a mutation tool with no annotations and destructive replacement semantics (fields, indexes, rules) needs more than one sentence. The description leaves permission requirements and the overwrite behavior unstated, relying entirely on the 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 100%, so all nine parameters, including the '__unset__' sentinel and the empty-string/public rule convention, are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the high-level grouping 'schema or rules' and omits renaming, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 and resource ('Update a collection') plus the broad scope of what can change ('schema or rules'). It is distinguishable from record-level siblings (update_record) and from create_collection/delete_collection by name and verb. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly or noting that renaming is also possible, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as create_collection or delete_collection, and no prerequisites (admin/auth requirements, whether the collection must be empty or existing). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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