update_space

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only the provided fields change') and return value ('Returns the updated Space'). However, it does not mention authorization needs, side effects, or error conditions, leaving room for more transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with essential information front-loaded ('Update a Space'). No extraneous words, and every phrase earns its place. Ideal conciseness for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the mutation behavior and return. However, it lacks explanations of the nested features object structure and any prerequisites or error scenarios. It is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 each parameter. The description adds little beyond listing categories; the 'Only the provided fields change' note reinforces schema hints like 'Omit to keep the current name'. Since schema does most of the work, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a Space' and lists specific modifiable fields (rename, privacy, assignee mode, admin permissions, feature toggles), distinguishing it from other space operations like create_space or delete_space. It also clarifies partial update behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

While no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is given, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would intuitively use this tool to modify space settings. It is the only tool for updating a space among siblings, so context is implied. However, lacking explicit alternatives or prerequisites keeps it from a 5.

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