io_update_space

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses the two-phase confirmation behavior, that the first call makes NO network call, how confirmToken must be replayed, the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE fallback, and a prompt-injection warning about text inside tool results. The annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so this context is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the partial-update rule. The second sentence is long and densely nested, but every clause carries operational weight (confirmation path, token replay, injection guard), so 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 destructive mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description closes the important gaps: confirmation mechanics, token semantics, and a safety guard against injecting records. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 7 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value with the partial-update rule (omit unchanged fields) and by cross-referencing MCP_CONFIRM_MODE for confirmToken usage.

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 + resource ("Update an existing iOffice space") and adds a partial-update rule ("Only provide fields to change"). It is clearly distinguishable from io_create_space and io_delete_space by name, but the description never explicitly names or routes to those siblings.

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 clear operating context: supply only changed fields, expect a confirmation prompt, and fall back to a preview/confirmToken round-trip when the client lacks elicitation. What is missing is explicit when-to-use/alternative routing versus siblings such as io_create_space or io_delete_space.

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