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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the id is unchanged so links keep working, null clears from/to/frequency/description, "Rows replace all existing rows", and a plan-level prerequisite.

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?

Front-loads the core semantics in the first two sentences, then uses compact per-kind field lists and a worked example. Dense but every line carries information; only the return-shape sentence could be considered optional given no output schema is declared.

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?

With 11 parameters, 45% schema coverage and no output schema, this description covers the gaps well: it documents per-kind field applicability, null semantics, replacement behavior, the Pro plan prerequisite and the return shape. Minor omission is the absence of explicit sibling routing.

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 only 45%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it splits applicable fields by item kind (charts/tables vs datasets), explains null-clearing semantics for from/to/frequency/description, warns that rows overwrite all existing rows, and supplies a concrete example payload. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 (change) plus the resource (saved chart, table or dataset) and the key semantic that the id is preserved in place, which cleanly separates it from workspace_save, workspace_get and workspace_delete among the siblings. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

"Pass the id and only the fields to change" implies partial-update usage, and "Needs the Pro plan" gives a prerequisite. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between this and the sibling update-ish tools (workspace_save for new items, workspace_delete), so the usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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