update_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'existing', hinting that the workspace must already exist, but fails to mention partial update semantics, permissions, or side effects. No information is provided about whether fields not specified remain unchanged, or what errors might occur.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is well-structured and front-loaded for the core purpose, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain that only name and description are updatable, that unspecified fields remain untouched, or any prerequisites or effects. The tool is simple but the description leaves important behavioral gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already documents workspaceId, name, and description clearly. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing workspace'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by resource type (workspace vs collections, environments, etc.). However, it provides no additional scope or qualifying detail beyond the name itself.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need to modify an existing workspace. But no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it (e.g., if the workspace doesn't exist) or alternatives like create_workspace. The sibling list is available but no reference is made to it.

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