update_community_space

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that the endpoint 'replaces the fields you send on an existing record in the live school,' that auth is 'injected server-side, never by the model,' and that calls are throttled and retried on 429/5xx. It also details the return format and maps common HTTP error statuses to causes. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured 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 lengthier than average, but it is tightly structured with labeled sections: Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when. Each sentence carries operational value—auth, throttling, retries, error mapping, and tool selection—so the length is justified and every part is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates fully by stating the return as 'HTTP <status> followed by the LearnWorlds JSON response body' and describing error conditions. It covers usage conditions, parameter nuances, authentication, rate limiting, retries, and related tools. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds important operational nuance: the entire JSON payload goes in the single `body` argument, is forwarded verbatim, and although the spec marks `body` optional, this endpoint expects one. This prevents a likely misuse that the raw schema alone would not.

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 opens with '🟡 WRITE · updates data · PUT /v2/community/spaces/{id}' and states 'Updates the community space specified by the provided space id.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'use the create tool if it does not exist yet' and listing related Community tools.

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?

There is an explicit 'Use when: only when the user asked to change an existing record' statement. It provides concrete guidance to 'Read it first so you overwrite just the fields you mean to' and directs to the create tool when the record does not exist. This clearly routes an agent to the correct alternative.

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