update_input_guardrail_workspace_exclusions

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

The description discloses merge vs. override behavior, immediate enforcement changes, idempotency of repeating states, authentication requirements, and 403 errors on non-Enterprise plans. This significantly enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), which only hint at these behaviors.

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 compact and information-dense. Six short sentences each contribute unique value: purpose, entry semantics, merge behavior, guidance, auth, and error condition. No filler or redundancy.

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 moderately complex mutation tool, the description covers all essential context: auth scope, Enterprise gating, immediate enforcement impact, merge vs. override semantics, and idempotency. With annotations and an output schema present, this description is fully sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that each entry excludes or restores one workspace and that default merge preserves unmentioned workspaces, which clarifies the workspaces array and override_existing parameter beyond schema descriptions.

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 sets workspace exclusions for organisation-wide input guardrails, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling update_output_guardrail_workspace_exclusions by specifying 'input guardrails' and explains the core entry semantics.

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 explicitly advises reviewing the matching list tool first because enforcement changes immediately, and specifies required API key scope and Enterprise plan gating. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context strongly implies the input/output distinction and provides clear preconditions.

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