update_community_space

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

The description adds that the endpoint returns the updated resource and that it's a PUT operation. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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, consisting of a header line and two sentences. It front-loads key information (emojis, HTTP method, resource type). The header includes some redundant elements, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 complexity of the tool (many body parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not clarify update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), dependencies on other fields (e.g., access and collectionId), or expected behavior when omitting fields. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description lacks contextual completeness for a safe and correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It paraphrases the 'id' parameter but adds no new meaning.

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 community space' and 'Updates the community space specified by the provided space id.' The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_community_space or delete_community_space beyond the verb itself.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_community_space or delete_community_space. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool should not be used.

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