prufa_workspace_settings

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It reveals idempotence, the need for a saved card for auto_recharge, and partial updates. However, it does not cover permissions, error states, or return value behavior.

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 a single well-structured sentence with a parenthetical clarification for auto_recharge. It front-loads the core action and covers key details without redundancy.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It explains partial updates and idempotency. However, it does not describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful.

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 low (20%), but the description adds meaningful context for several parameters. For example, auto_recharge is explained as 'auto-buys credits when a launch is blocked on an empty balance — needs a card on file,' and auto_recharge_credits/auto_recharge_monthly_limit_cents are grouped. However, parameters like display_name and email_alerts_enabled lack elaboration.

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 updates workspace settings and enumerates specific settings (display_name, usage webhook, overage opt-in, auto_recharge, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with domains, billing, flows, or monitors.

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 advises to pass only keys to change and notes that at least one setting is required. It also explains idempotent behavior. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the sibling tool names are distinct enough that usage context is clear.

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