update_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified settings. The mention of 'name, domain, plan, etc.' hints at updatable fields but lacks detail.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant, with the second providing parameter guidance. There's no wasted text, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters).

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 (mutation tool with 1 nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, and full parameter documentation, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 mentions parameters like 'name, domain, plan, etc.' and indicates they should be passed in an object, adding some meaning beyond the generic 'space' object in the schema. However, it doesn't fully document the single parameter's structure or constraints, leaving significant gaps.

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 ('Update') and target resource ('space settings'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_space' (read) and 'create_story' (create), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_story' or 'update_asset'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space ID), when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from other update tools in the sibling list like 'update_story' or 'update_asset'.

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