Update a collection

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: the previous state is snapshotted before writing and can be reverted via nuvio_undo. It does not cover open-world side effects or error conditions, but with annotation coverage this is a useful rather than essential disclosure.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core editing purpose front-loaded and the rollback behavior stated second. Every clause adds information and there is no repetition of schema or title.

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?

The description covers the key editable fields and the undo path, which is good for a mutating tool with no output schema. But it does not explain whether omitted fields are unchanged or reset, does not mention the profile scoping parameter, and does not help navigate the complex nested folders object or choose among folder-management siblings.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It maps the main updatable fields (title, viewMode, pinToTop, folders) and clarifies that the folders field replaces the list. It omits showAllTab, backdropImageUrl, and the collection_id/profile_id identification parameters, so it is only a partial compensation.

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 identifies a specific action ('Edit') and resource (a collection), and lists the editable aspects: title, view mode, pin state, and folder list. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling nuvio_update_collection_folder, so differentiation relies mostly on the tool names.

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 first sentence implies the appropriate use case: modify a collection's metadata or replace its folders. However, it gives no explicit conditions for choosing this tool over nuvio_update_collection_folder or the add/remove/reorder folder siblings, and it does not state when not to use it.

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