External MCP only. Start headless Space edit. Poll spaces_edit_status until allTerminal, then verify with spaces_state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| spaceId | Yes | ||
| threadId | No | ||
| anchorDirection | No | ||
| anchorElementId | No | ||
| selectedElementIds | No | ||
| selectedConnectionIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false and provide little signal about behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: this is an external MCP tool, the edit is launched asynchronously, and completion requires polling. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the non-read-only nature is already implied by the edit action and `readOnlyHint: false`.
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 three short sentences with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and then gives the necessary workflow steps. Every sentence adds value.
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 workflow guidance is helpful, but the tool has 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description does not explain what a 'Space edit' does, what `query` means, or what the result/return state will look like. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
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 has 7 parameters, including required `query` and `spaceId`, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not name or explain any parameter, so it completely fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The agent would have no guidance on how to populate these fields.
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 the tool's action: 'Start headless Space edit.' It also distinguishes this tool from sibling status/state tools by prescribing follow-up with `spaces_edit_status` and `spaces_state`. It does not explain what kinds of edits can be performed, so it is not maximally specific.
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 an explicit async workflow: start the edit, poll `spaces_edit_status` until `allTerminal`, then verify with `spaces_state`. The 'External MCP only' line adds a usage constraint. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative edit methods, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.