workspace_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new risk context: the team email list fully replaces the prior one (members omitted lose access), notification emails default to on, and API keys typed in chat pass through the conversation and must never be echoed back. That security warning is exactly the kind of disclosure structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its fields, then pipe-delimited per-action blocks that keep each action self-contained. The prose is dense and slightly run-on (the per-agent override hint is tacked on without framing), but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and for a destructive multi-action mutation the description covers the replacement semantics, default states, and key-handling cautions an agent needs. The one gap is the undocumented 'mode' parameter and no note on what a successful response looks like.

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 63%, and the description compensates by explaining what each action consumes (keys for set_provider_keys, formSubmitEmailsEnabled for set_form_submit_emails, name/photo/team for update_team_profile) plus the destructive semantics of workspaceEmails. It does not explain the 'mode' parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change workspace settings') and enumerates the three concrete sub-actions (update_team_profile, set_form_submit_emails, set_provider_keys) with the fields each touches. An agent can tell this is the workspace-mutation tool, though it never names workspace_read or orgs_write/agency_write as the read/sibling alternatives.

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 per-action operating guidance: read the current team on the dashboard before update_team_profile because the list replaces the old one, and prefer the dashboard over chat for provider keys. Missing an explicit statement of when to use this tool versus workspace_read or orgs_write, but the intra-tool routing is clear.

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