id=space. Replace policy using its version. Coordinator may bootstrap a sole-member group or manage legacy owner_managed spaces; otherwise create a policy proposal.
| 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 update_space_policy. 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 signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'Replace'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the coordinator-role limitation and the fallback to a proposal, plus the version-based replacement mechanism. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two short sentences carry both the core operation and the routing condition. There is no filler or repetition; the essential information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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?
The description covers the key decision boundary (direct update vs. proposal) and the version-based replacement mechanism. The rich schema and output schema fill in field-level details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly, though slightly more context about destructive effects would have been possible.
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 already describes id and expected_version, while the tool description adds the valuable clarification that 'id=space', which is not obvious from the generic schema text. However, the description does not add meaning to the policy object fields, and with 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the undocumented policy parameters.
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 ('Replace') and resource ('policy') scoped to a space, and adds the critical version-based mechanism. It also distinguishes the direct-update path from the proposal path, making it identifiable among siblings like get_space_policy and create_space_proposal.
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 states when direct replacement is allowed ('Coordinator may bootstrap a sole-member group or manage legacy owner_managed spaces') and when it is not ('otherwise create a policy proposal'). This gives an agent a clear decision rule for selecting this tool versus the proposal alternative.
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.