update_workspace

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

The description does disclose the admin_write permission requirement, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare mutation statement. However, with no annotations, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, return behavior, or whether the optional profile parameter changes behavior. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the permission precondition. Every sentence carries useful information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits the purpose of the profile parameter and provides no output or postcondition information. The permission note helps, but without annotations or an output schema, the definition leaves several details that an agent may need for a fully confident call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that display_name is the target field, and workspace_name is reasonably inferable as the identifier, but the optional profile parameter is completely unexplained. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('workspace display name'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_workspace, disable_workspace, or delete_workspace. The permission requirement adds further precision, so an agent can identify the tool's intent immediately.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention that this is for existing workspaces only, how it differs from create_workspace or delete_workspace, or any conditions such as workspace state. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and target field.

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