Update Workspace

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds one genuine behavioral rule not derivable from the schema: at least one mutable field must be supplied. It omits permissions, what happens to unspecified fields, and whether public=false reverts to private.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity about whether it is a hard requirement or a suggestion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the 3 flat boolean/string params are simple. Still, a mutation tool should say what happens to unmentioned settings and whether any privilege is required; those gaps remain.

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 parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the meaningful constraint about supplying public or enableAi, but nothing beyond that.

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 and resource ("Update workspace settings"), which is clear enough to act on. However, it doesn't distinguish this from close siblings like update_settings or update_profile, leaving the agent to infer scope from the schema fields alone.

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 precondition "Requires at least one of public or enableAi" gives a valid-call rule, which is useful. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over update_settings/update_profile, and no exclusions or context about who may call it.

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