Update collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the PATCH behavior (only provided fields changed) and the immutability of collection type, but omits details about permissions, error cases, or response format.

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 concise (three short sentences), front-loads the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (operation, constraint, and schema reference). No redundancy.

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 two-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, constraints, and points to get_operation_schema for the exact shape. It doesn't discuss error handling or permissions, but given the simplicity, it's largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that the `collection` parameter is a partial update (only provided fields change) and that the type cannot be changed, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing collection, specifies the PATCH semantics, and notes that only provided fields are changed and the collection type is immutable. This distinguishes it from create/delete/get collection siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (updating existing collections) and notes an exclusion (cannot change collection type). It also directs users to get_operation_schema for the exact request shape, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for create/delete.

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