update_workspace

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that updates take effect immediately and that changing the slug can break URLs, API key references, etc. Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but the description enriches this with practical side effects.

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: the first clearly states purpose and differentiates from a sibling, the second provides critical behavioral notes. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested metadata) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the main use case, side effects, and differentiation. It does not detail return values but the output schema likely handles that.

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 the schema already describes each parameter. The description merely lists the field names without adding new semantic detail. This meets the baseline but does not add significant value.

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 explicitly states it updates a workspace's properties by ID, listing specific fields (name, slug, description, default flag, metadata) and contrasts with the sibling tool update_workspace_member, making the purpose distinct and clear.

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 provides a direct comparison with update_workspace_member and warns about slug changes breaking external links. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other alternatives like get_workspace for reading, leaving some implicit context.

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