updateWorkspace

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, including rate limits for public workspaces, uniqueness requirements, and detailed warnings about deprecated linking behavior. While annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, the description enriches understanding of workspace-specific constraints and mutation behaviors.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with multiple bullet points and warnings. While all information appears relevant, the structure could be more streamlined, with some redundancy in the annotations field where the same text appears.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavioral constraints, deprecations, and side effects. It compensates well for the lack of output schema by explaining what changes propagate and deletion consequences, though it could mention response format or error conditions.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description doesn't mention any parameters directly, leaving the schema to document workspaceId and the workspace object properties. The description focuses on behavioral aspects rather than parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is moderate.

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 verb 'Updates' and resource 'a workspace', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from potential sibling update operations (like updateMock or updateSpecFile) beyond the workspace focus, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance through notes about rate limits, uniqueness requirements, and deprecation warnings, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like createWorkspace or getWorkspace. The context is helpful but not comprehensive for decision-making.

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