update_space

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that only 'safe common metadata' is updated and lists the fields, reinforcing the idempotent and non-destructive nature. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but with annotations present, the added context is sufficient.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and lists fields, the second clarifies exclusions. It is front-loaded with actionable information, no redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has 8 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main updateable fields and provides boundaries (what it does not do). However, it does not mention the 'space' identifier parameter or the 'class' and 'type' parameters, which could be important for context. Since output schema exists, return values are not needed. Overall, slightly incomplete but adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the fields (name, description, private, archived, autoJoin) but does not add semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. The required 'space' parameter is not mentioned. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'Huly space', lists the specific fields (name, description, private, archived, autoJoin), and distinguishes from creating/deleting spaces or updating module-specific fields. Among sibling update tools, this differentiates its scope effectively.

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 explicitly says it does not create/delete spaces or mutate module-specific required fields, providing guidance on when not to use it. It implies when to use (updating safe common metadata) but does not name an alternative tool explicitly, such as 'create_space'. It offers good context but lacks an explicit alternative.

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