update_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Update' implying mutation, but doesn't state whether partial updates are allowed, whether unspecified fields are left unchanged, what permissions are required, or how the private/archived flags behave when toggled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence with zero waste, which is structurally efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than concisely comprehensive—it's so terse that it borders on being a tautology of the tool name. It earns credit for brevity but lacks the informational content that would justify a higher score.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 14% schema description coverage. The description must compensate for all of this but does not. It doesn't explain which fields are updatable, whether partial updates are supported, what the response returns, or any side effects. The tool is substantially under-documented for a complex update operation.

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 only 14% (only space_id has a description), so the description should compensate. However, the description provides zero parameter information. The score is baseline 3 because the 6 undocumented parameters (name, color, private, archived, admin_can_manage, multiple_assignees) have self-explanatory names, but the description adds nothing about their semantics, format, or constraints.

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 'Update an existing space' names the verb 'Update' and resource 'space', which gives a clear basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify which fields or attributes can be updated, nor does it differentiate this from the many sibling get_/create_/delete_ operations on spaces. It's clear but minimal, not distinguishing it from related space operations like create_space or delete_space.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about when updating is appropriate (e.g., modifying settings vs. creating a new space vs. deleting), no prerequisites mentioned, and no exclusions stated. With 94 sibling tools including create_space and delete_space, a note about the appropriate use case would be valuable.

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