update_mcp_integration_workspaces

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true. The description adds blast radius ('only the workspaces listed change'), propagation timing ('applies or is removed immediately for all users in those workspaces'), and the undo mechanism ('re-running with enabled flipped'). That is exactly the mutation context an agent needs before writing.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, how it behaves/undoes, where to source inputs. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler. The trailing return-value sentence is redundant with the output schema but costs only one clause.

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?

Covers prerequisites (which list tools to call first), mutation semantics (scope, immediacy, reversibility), and the input contract, while an output schema already documents the return shape. An agent can invoke this correctly without further investigation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'bulk' framing for the workspaces array and the grant-vs-revoke semantics of the enabled flag. It does not state the minItems=1 constraint or slug-vs-id tolerance in prose, but the schema covers those.

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 pair (grant/revoke), the exact resource (workspace access to an MCP integration), and the operating mode (bulk). It is immediately distinguishable from the read-only sibling list_mcp_integration_workspaces, which is named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance for the three inputs, naming list_mcp_integrations, list_workspaces, and list_mcp_integration_workspaces as the sources. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of the non-MCP sibling update_integration_workspaces, so no exclusion edge is drawn.

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