update_space

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'update' without disclosing whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, supports partial updates, or returns any response. The description offers no insight into behavior beyond the act of updating, which is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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 clear sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it maximally concise while still conveying the core purpose.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema (e.g., features with many sub-options), no output schema, and no annotations. A one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full scope of behavior, edge cases, or prerequisites. The description is minimally viable but lacks the depth needed for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including descriptions for 'name', 'features', 'space_id', and 'multiple_assignees'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ClickUp space' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (ClickUp space), distinguishing it from create_space and delete_space. The word 'existing' adds needed specificity that the space must already be present.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or which alternatives to prefer. The only implicit cue is 'existing,' which hints that the space must already exist, but there is no mention of prerequisites like verifying with get_space first or using create_space for new spaces.

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