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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by explaining retry semantics (same idempotency_key returns the original result), but omits what 'archive state' does to contained content, auth requirements, and any rate limits. The retry claim sits in tension with idempotentHint=false, but it is scoped to the same key, so it reads as a clarification rather than a hard contradiction.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the retry-safety note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with 10 params, 30% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description gives a workable purpose and retry story but leaves notable gaps: no explanation of the required idempotency_key/workspaceId params, no warning about the destructive/archive effects, and no coverage of the override params.

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 30% across 10 params (including nested body/query overrides), so the description should compensate. It names roughly four updatable attributes (name, archive state, kind, mode) plus references idempotency_key, which partially covers the meaningful params, but leaves body, query, brand_id, workspaceId/workspace_id, and workspace_type undocumented and does not explain enum values.

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 (update) and resource (workspace) and enumerates the mutable facets: name, archive state, kind, or mode. This distinguishes it from read/creation siblings like aidelly_get_workspace and aidelly_create_workspace, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. Minor mismatch: 'mode' does not map cleanly to any schema field (the closest is workspace_type with enum traditional/agentic).

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing against siblings such as aidelly_update_workspace_member or aidelly_archive_brain_entry. It only implies usage through the enumeration of updatable fields.

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