update_collection_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update (mutation) operation, but does not disclose whether multiple fields can be updated simultaneously, whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, whether the operation is reversible, or whether permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though arguably under-specified given the parameter count and lack of annotation support.

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 six parameters, zero annotation coverage, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema exists but doesn't relieve the need to explain which fields are mutable and how update semantics work. A mutation tool with this complexity and no annotations should provide more behavioral and field-level context.

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%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters. It provides no semantics beyond the field names (language, quantity, personal_note, price_variant, condition_note). The description does not clarify the meaning of these fields in context (e.g., what 'price_variant' vs 'condition_note' represent), nor the 'mutable fields' claim relative to which fields are mutable. The field titles give minimal help, but the description adds nothing.

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 "Update mutable fields of a local collection row" states a clear verb (update), resource (collection row), and scope (mutable fields / local). It implies mutability vs. a broader collection context, distinguishing somewhat from read tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling add_collection_item beyond the obvious update-vs-add contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like add_collection_item, remove_collection_item, or list_collection. The description doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., item must exist), nor does it explain that item_id is required while other fields are optional mutation targets. Context must be inferred entirely.

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