Update a collection

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it mentions dry_run (no write, no snapshot, no audit) and that it snapshots the previous state before the write, enabling undo via nuvio_undo. This is useful context not present in the annotations. However, it does not address the openWorldHint=true side effects or what happens when replacing the folder list (e.g., whether existing folders are removed).

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 that front-loads the primary action and key capabilities (dry_run, snapshot, undo). There is no unnecessary verbiage, and the most important behavioral notes are included.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple optional fields, no output schema), the description is under-specified. It omits several parameters (showAllTab, backdropImageUrl, profile_id semantics), does not explain the folder list replacement behavior, and lacks any guidance on required vs. optional changes. The description is too brief for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct and complete input.

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 only 25% (only dry_run has a description), so the description must compensate. It names a few parameters (title, viewMode, pinToTop, folders) but does not explain the nested folder object structure, the meaning of showAllTab or backdropImageUrl, or how 'replace its folder list' behaves. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the nested schema fields remain undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('collection') and lists the main editable fields (title, view mode, pin state, folder list). However, it omits two schema fields (showAllTab, backdropImageUrl) and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like nuvio_update_collection_folder or nuvio_add_collection_folder, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description implies usage by listing what can be edited and mentioning dry_run and undo, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like nuvio_add_collection_folder or nuvio_update_collection_folder. No explicit exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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