modify_workspace_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action (modify), notes that setting access_level to 'null' removes access, and indicates a return Dict. However, it does not disclose permissions required, reversibility, or error conditions. This is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 concise, with clear structure: a one-sentence summary, followed by prerequisites in a list, then parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema shown (though description mentions a return Dict), the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return type. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for this tool, it is largely complete.

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. It explains each parameter: workspace_id (L'ID de l'espace de travail), user_email (Email de l'utilisateur), access_level (Niveau d'accès with allowed values: owners, editors, viewers, ou null pour supprimer). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the action: 'Modifie l'accès d'un utilisateur à un espace de travail.' The verb 'modify' and resource 'workspace access' are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_workspace (which alters workspace properties) by focusing on access permissions.

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 prerequisites: list_workspaces and list_workspace_access, guiding the agent to first obtain a valid workspace_id and review current access. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool, but the context is clear. Alternatives are not stated, but the tool's specific purpose makes them implicit.

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