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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by labeling it state-changing, requiring authorization, and spelling out the concrete consequence that a visibility change "can expose or remove its contents from public access." It stops short of reversibility or partial-update behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the behavioral warning, then the prerequisite. No filler sentences, though the long enumeration in the first clause is dense.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema but full annotations, the description covers trigger, prerequisite, and the destructive consequence of visibility changes. An agent could call it correctly; only edge details like reversibility or partial-update semantics are absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by mapping parameters to user intents (rename → name, edit description → description, public/private → is_public, slug) and by telling the agent where space_id comes from, which the schema only partly conveys.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (Space) and enumerates exactly which settings are mutable: rename, description, public/private, publish/unpublish, slug. This clearly separates it from siblings like create-space, delete-space, update-space-document, and update-space-item.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("Use this when the user wants to rename a Space, edit its description...") plus a prerequisite ("Requires numeric space_id from list-spaces"). However, it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions, e.g. that document/item edits belong to update-space-document or update-space-item.

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