workspace_update_reference_expansion_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful non-obvious side effect: 'cumulative usage is retained' when budgets are revised. However, it does not disclose whether changes are reversible, how the update interacts with active reference expansions, or what response is returned, so transparency is 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?

The description is a single tight sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about cumulative usage is presented efficiently. Both clauses earn their 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?

For a mutating policy-update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested 'limits' object, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the required run_id, the expected shape of limits, or the tool's place among the many reference expansion lifecycle siblings. An agent would still need to infer or probe critical details before calling it safely.

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 the undocumented parameters. It adds only that numeric budgets are revised, which loosely hints at the 'limits' object, but it does not explain the structure of 'limits' or the role of 'run_id' at all. The 'additionalProperties: true' schema leaves key names completely ambiguous.

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 action, 'revise numeric budgets', which maps clearly to updating a reference expansion policy's limits. It is not a tautology and is distinct from sibling lifecycle tools like advance, pause, or cancel. However, it never explicitly names the policy resource, relying on the tool name to supply that context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_advance_reference_expansion or workspace_pause_reference_expansion. It also gives no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The only implied context is that this tool is for revising budgets, but that is purpose, not usage guidance.

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