update_space

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive. The description adds the ownership constraint, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, error cases, or permissions beyond ownership.

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 a one-line purpose followed by an Args section that clearly lists parameters. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though the Args list could be more compact.

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 simple update tool with 5 parameters (1 required), the description covers all inputs, includes an ownership constraint, and mentions the output (JSON string). It is adequately complete given the presence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'New name for the space'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, clarifying that these are the new values to set.

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 context space (owner only).' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('context space'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_space, delete_space, and share_space.

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 implies usage for updating spaces and mentions an ownership constraint, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives.

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