updateWorkspace

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with an update operation. The description adds transparency beyond annotations by listing constraints on visibility changes and rate limits, which helps the agent understand limitations and side effects.

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 (two sentences plus a bullet-point note) and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently communicates key constraints without excess verbiage. The structure is clear, though the note could be formatted more compactly.

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 tool's complexity (nested object, 2 parameters), the description covers essential constraints and behaviors like plan limitations and rate limits. However, it does not describe the return value or success/failure indicators, which is a gap since there is no 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?

The input schema covers parameters with descriptions, but the tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. It references 'name or visibility' but the schema already documents those fields. Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description does not compensate for the missing top-level workspace parameter description.

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 'Updates a workspace's property, such as its name or visibility' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like createWorkspace or getWorkspaces, though it could be more explicit about other updateable properties like description or about.

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 includes a note detailing unsupported visibility changes based on plan type and team membership, and mentions rate limits and name uniqueness. This provides context for when the tool cannot be used, but does not directly compare to alternatives like createWorkspace.

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