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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond the title: it never says the change overwrites existing values, whether it is reversible, or that settings are merged rather than replaced (that detail lives in the schema, not the description). For a destructive mutation, no extra behavioral context is provided.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits routing guidance against the near-duplicate configurar_workspace and update_settings siblings, and does not warn about the destructive/overwrite nature flagged in annotations.

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%, so all three parameters including workspace_id and the merge semantics of settings are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'name and/or settings' and adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Stated verb 'Actualiza' with resource 'workspace' and named fields (nombre, configuración), so the operation is clear. However it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as configurar_workspace or update_settings, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus configurar_workspace, update_settings, or search_workspace, and states no prerequisites (e.g., needing workspace_id or a fixed token workspace). Usage must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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