tenki_update_workspace_settings

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

Annotations declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description goes further, disclosing partial-update semantics, the clear_* flag mechanism to revert to defaults, the mutual exclusivity rule (pass value OR clear flag, not both), and the absence of per-session defaults. This materially enriches behavioral understanding beyond the annotations.

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, all high-value: the main action, the critical update semantics, and the distinguishing note about defaults. No filler or repetition of schema content; it is front-loaded and compact.

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 12-parameter, all-optional update tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation rules: partial updates, clear-flag behavior, and scope limitations. The main omission is the response/return format, but that is not essential for correct invocation and the schema already documents each parameter's meaning.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how the clear_* flags relate to quota fields, the prohibition on passing both a value and its clear flag, and the partial-update behavior. This helps an agent reason about parameter combinations more effectively than the schema alone.

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 action and resource: 'Update a workspace's sandbox quotas and retention periods.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sandbox (sandbox-level) and get_workspace_settings (read-only). The verb and resource scope are unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear operational context: only passed fields change, and there is an explicit exclusion for per-session defaults ('idle timeout and max duration are set per sandbox at creation'), implying those belong elsewhere. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance beyond that exclusion.

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