Update a workspace

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details not covered by annotations, such as unsupported visibility transitions for specific plans, rate limits on publishing public workspaces, and uniqueness constraints for public team workspace names. These go beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations and inform the agent of potential pitfalls.

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 concise and well-structured: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by clearly bulleted notes. Each note provides relevant constraints without unnecessary fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The description covers key behavioral constraints (plan limitations, rate limits, uniqueness) that are critical for execution success. It does not mention response format or error behavior, but there is no output schema, and for an update tool the annotations already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a moderate-complexity API.

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 description mentions 'name or visibility' as examples but does not add substantive meaning for the workspace object or workspaceId beyond what the input schema already provides. With only 50% schema coverage, the description could compensate but fails to explain the full set of updatable fields or the workspaceId parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Updates a workspace's property, such as its name or visibility.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples (name, visibility) help clarify its scope. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like createWorkspace or getWorkspace based on the action.

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 usage for modifying an existing workspace but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance. It offers constraints (e.g., unsupported visibility changes) but no clear direction on when to choose this tool over createWorkspace or other sibling tools.

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