update_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that config replaces the whole selection snapshot and that invalid keys are 'rejected by ATLAS', which is genuinely useful. However, it omits details such as whether name and description can be set together with config, what happens on partial failure, or permission requirements — notable gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first line, the critical config-replacement caveat and required read-first step in the second, and the allowed keys in the third. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema exists, full parameter coverage, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential gotcha (config replacement semantics) and the rejection behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call this correctly; the only minor gap is explicit wording on usage boundaries vs. create/delete, which is largely self-evident.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it clarifies that config is a wholesale replacement of the snapshot rather than a merge, which the schema's terse 'Replacement selection snapshot, if changing' does not convey. The explicit allowed-keys list also helps an agent avoid rejected inputs.

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 line states a specific verb and resource ('Update a workspace's name, description, or selections'), making the purpose unambiguous. The scope is clearly delimited and easy to distinguish from siblings like create_workspace, delete_workspace, and list_workspaces without inspecting their schemas.

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?

It gives explicit context for the trickiest case by instructing the agent to 'read the current one with list_workspaces first' before passing config, and enumerates the allowed config keys. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus create/delete, but the update-vs-create/delete distinction is self-evident from the verb.

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