Update a workspace

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotency hints, so the remaining burden is added context. The description contributes meaningful behavioral details: unsupported visibility changes by plan/audience, rate limits when publishing public workspaces, and a uniqueness requirement for public team workspace names.

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 opening sentence is concise and specific, and the note list is scannable. There is minor redundancy with the schema's type field description, but the additional notes earn their place and clarify failure modes.

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?

Combined with the rich schema and annotations, the description covers the key failure modes and constraints for an agent making a workspace update. It does not describe the response shape, but the main risks for this operation are behavioral and are disclosed here.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to restate field definitions. It adds value with parameter-level constraints, especially the uniqueness rule for public team workspace names and rate-limit implications when setting public visibility.

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 uses the specific verb 'updates' with a workspace resource and gives concrete examples such as name or visibility. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling read/create operations without being a tautology of the title.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing workspace and gives important constraints such as unsupported visibility transitions, rate limits, and unique public team names. It does not explicitly direct agents to choose this tool over alternatives like createWorkspace or getWorkspace, so the guidance is present but not proactive.

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