id=entry. Author/coordinator configures protection, and task reviewer_id/criteria while open. A protected self-governed entry requires group proposals to edit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for configure_space_entry. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the write/destructive nature, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds meaningful behavior context: role restrictions, the 'while open' requirement, and the governance consequence that protected self-governed entries require group proposals to edit. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the id and core purpose. The phrase 'and task reviewer_id/criteria' is grammatically compressed, but every sentence contributes useful information without padding.
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?
Given the output schema exists, return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers role, timing, and the protected-state consequence, while the schema covers versioning and stale-write behavior. It could be more explicit about what happens when the entry is not open, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description gives semantic purpose for id, protected, reviewer_id, and criteria by linking them to task configuration and protection. It does not repeat expected_version details, but the schema already documents those thoroughly. This partially compensates for the schema coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb, 'configures', and names the resource: a space entry, limited to protection and task reviewer_id/criteria while open. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update_space_entry, which implies general content editing.
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 gives useful conditions: it is for author/coordinator use, applies 'while open', and a protected self-governed entry requires group proposals to edit. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to use update_space_entry or create_space_proposal instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.