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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation semantics are already known; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the required permission level and the `wiki:spaces:write` API scope. It omits any warning about irreversibility or what destructive effect a metadata change could have, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Four short sentences, none redundant; the core partial-update behavior and the immutability constraint are front-loaded where the agent will see them first.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: optionality of fields, permission and scope requirements, and the one immutable identifier. Return shape and effect on unspecified fields are left implicit but are low-risk gaps.

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 78%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a step up by stating that all fields are optional and that spaceKey is immutable despite being required — a non-obvious constraint the schema does not express. It does not explain the visibility toggles, which remain schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a wiki space's metadata") that is clearly distinct from siblings like wiki_update_page or wiki_set_public_settings. However, it does not name those siblings or clarify the boundary with wiki_set_public_settings, which the schema has to do instead.

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?

Provides partial-update guidance ("pass only what you want to change") and a prerequisite ("Requires edit access to the space"), which implies when the tool is applicable. It gives no explicit exclusions or pointer to alternatives for visibility or naming changes.

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