paperclip_update_workspace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return object (updated workspace with id, cwd, repoUrl, updatedAt) and error codes (401, 404), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is concise, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return object. It covers parameter details, usage example, and error handling. It could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites (e.g., workspace must exist), but overall sufficiently complete for an update tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter descriptions and adds example values (e.g., 'prj_abc123'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Update a workspace's cwd or repoUrl', specifying both the resource (workspace) and the action (update). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool paperclip_create_workspace by stating when not to use it. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage examples ('Use when: updating the workspace path after the repo was moved') and a clear exclusion ('Don't use when: you need to create a new workspace — use paperclip_create_workspace instead'). It also lists error handling scenarios, guiding the agent on troubleshooting.

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