io_update_space

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the two-phase confirmation flow, that phase 1 writes NOTHING and returns a preview plus confirmToken, and that the token must only be replayed after explicit user approval. It also warns against prompt-injection-driven writes, which is genuinely novel context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and the key partial-update rule are front-loaded, which is correct. The middle sentence is dense and parenthetical ("an update, delete, cancel or return only reads its target..."), which makes the confirmation mechanics harder to parse than necessary, but overall little is wasted.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the write path, the confirmation safety gate and the injection hazard thoroughly. It is slightly short on what a successful update returns or how unspecified fields are treated, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each field (id, name, typeId, capacity, description, squareFootage, confirmToken) is already documented in the schema. The description adds a behavioral rule for how to supply parameters — send only the fields being changed — which is meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain value formats or merge semantics for omitted fields.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing iOffice space"), which cleanly distinguishes it from io_create_space, io_delete_space and io_get_space in the sibling set. An agent can identify the tool's operation without opening the schema.

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?

"Only provide fields to change" gives useful partial-update guidance, and the confirmation workflow is spelled out. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. io_get_space to inspect first, or io_create_space), leaving the selection reasoning implied by the name rather than stated.

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