Update workspace settings. Only the fields provided are changed; omitted fields keep their current values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Workspace name | |
| webhooks | No | REPLACES the workspace's full webhook subscription list. Omit to leave webhooks unchanged; prefer subscribe_webhook / unsubscribe_webhook for adding or removing a single URL. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already indicating destructive and non-read-only behavior, the description adds valuable context by stating 'Only the fields provided are changed; omitted fields keep their current values,' which is a meaningful partial-update behavior. This complements 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately explain the key partial-update behavior. No wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present, good annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior, with the webhook replacement semantics provided in the schema. Slightly lacking is an explicit note in the description about webhook replacement, but this is covered elsewhere.
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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters, including detailed semantics for 'webhooks' about replacing the full list and preferring subscribe/unsubscribe tools. The main description adds no extra parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Update workspace settings' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other update tools like update_link and update_domain_favicon. The additional sentence about partial updates further clarifies the scope.
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 provides clear context that this tool updates workspace settings and that omitted fields are unchanged, implying its use for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternative tools (like subscribe_webhook/unsubscribe_webhook for webhook management), which appears only in the schema description.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between `list_links` and `search_links`, and between the several analytics/click tools. However, descriptions clarify their differences, reducing ambiguity.
Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun pattern, but `batchDeleteLinks` uses camelCase, breaking consistency. Additionally, `ping` and `test_authentication` deviate from the resource-based naming.
25 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for the scope, covering links, domains, analytics, webhooks, and workspace management. Each tool has a clear role, though the count could be slightly reduced by merging some analytics tools.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for links and domains, analytics (raw and aggregated), webhook management, workspace settings, and authentication checks. No obvious gaps for a URL shortening service.
