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

Beyond the annotations, it explains timezone semantics, that scheduled posts keep their exact instant, and that an empty UTM string resets to Shager's automatic value. It also explains the deliberate omission of approval_required as a client safeguard.

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 front-loaded with the main actions and contains no filler. The first sentence is dense with parentheticals, but every clause carries useful information.

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?

It covers the editable fields, partial-update behavior, and the approval_required exclusion, which is enough for correct invocation. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, though permission or auth context is 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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description adds useful meaning for timezone behavior and empty-string UTM reset behavior. It leaves workspace_id and name constraints to the schema and slightly differs from the schema's utm_campaign 'empty = none' wording.

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 concrete update operations on a workspace: renaming, timezone changes, and default UTM tag changes. This clearly distinguishes it from create_workspace and list_workspaces by verb and scope, even without naming a sibling explicitly.

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 explicitly says to send only what changes and states that approval_required cannot be changed here, directing managers to the app's Settings instead. It does not broadly route between update/create/list workspace siblings, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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