uvcs_update_workspace_prepare

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description is consistent with them: this prepare step returns a token instead of applying the update. Beyond that, it adds real behavioral value: it warns about merge conflicts and says the token is short-lived. It does not say what happens to the token if it expires before confirm.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the risk, then the protocol. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

There are no parameters and no output schema; the description states the return value is a confirmation token and flags the main hazard, so an agent has enough to call it and chain into confirm. Minor gaps remain: token lifetime and how the token is supplied to the confirm call.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema confirms an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 and resource: it updates the workspace to the latest changeset of its branch. The phrase "Requires prepare/confirm. Returns a short-lived confirmation token" makes clear this is the first half of a two-step flow, which distinguishes it from uvcs_update_workspace_confirm, though the sibling is never 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 the operational context needed for caution: local edits to upstream-changed files can cause merge conflicts. It also implies the required follow-up, the confirm call, through the prepare/confirm statement. It does not compare against alternatives such as switch_workspace or merge, so it stays below a 5.

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