ed_update_workspace

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals that only specified fields are modified while others are retained, and that it operates only on the caller's workspace. This non-destructive partial-update behavior is valuable context not present in the annotations.

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 and front-loaded, using a single sentence with two clauses. Every word adds value, covering the action, scope, and key behavioral rule 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?

For a simple update tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the ownership restriction, and partial update semantics. It might lack details about error handling or return values, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage at only 25%, the description compensates by indicating that 'title' is for renaming and 'is_public'/'public_write' are for sharing settings. It also clarifies that parameters are optional and only those provided will be changed, which aids parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 modifies one's own Ed workspace, covering renaming or sharing settings. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like ed_create_workspace and ed_delete_workspace.

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 clear context: use this to update your own workspace's name or sharing settings. It also gives an important usage guideline that only provided fields are changed, implying partial updates, and restricts to 'your own' workspace. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context is sufficient.

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