update_workspaceUse when the author asks to change the account time zone, weekly publication target or content reminder preference. Does not change existing publication times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timezone | No | IANA zone, for example Asia/Bangkok; publication times are stored in UTC. | |
| cadencePerWeek | No | ||
| remindersEnabled | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint (existing publication times are untouched), but says nothing about partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are left unchanged) or required permissions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by a scope exclusion. No filler and every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. What remains thin is the partial-update contract and the undocumented parameters, but for a 3-param preference patch tool the description is close to sufficient.
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 33%: timezone is documented in the schema (IANA format, UTC storage), while cadencePerWeek and remindersEnabled have no schema descriptions. The description compensates partially by mapping plain-language concepts ("weekly publication target", "content reminder preference") onto those two params, but gives no units, bounds, or boolean semantics.
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 states a specific verb (change/update) and enumerates the three resources affected: account time zone, weekly publication target, and content reminder preference. This lets an agent distinguish it from publication/post editing siblings, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.
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?
"Use when the author asks to change..." provides a concrete trigger condition, and "Does not change existing publication times" serves as an exclusion boundary that steers publication-time edits elsewhere (e.g., reschedule_publication). It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so it is clear context without full routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.