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

The description states it is 'state-changing' and the annotations confirm readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds minimal extra context about side effects. Given the annotations already convey the behavioral traits, the description meets the baseline but does not add significant transparency beyond what is already provided.

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, compact sentence that lists all relevant actions and the required parameter. It is efficiently structured, with no fluff or redundancy. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, but this is a mutation-only tool, and the description explains the operations and the prerequisite for space_id. It does not need to elaborate on return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly in conjunction with the sibling tools and list-spaces.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds practical guidance (e.g., space_id should come from list-spaces). The per-parameter descriptions align with the main description, making the semantics clear. Slight boost because the tool description reinforces the parameter usage, especially for the required space_id.

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 specific verb ('update') and resource ('Space'), and enumerates the exact mutations it performs (rename, edit description, make public/private, publish/unpublish, change slug). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-space and delete-space, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'when the user wants to rename, edit, etc.' and notes that space_id must be a numeric ID from list-spaces, providing clear guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, though the sibling list and specific action list imply alternatives. Minor gap, but still above average.

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