update_space

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '更新します' (updates), implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified settings. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a mutation operation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., space_id, name, isPrivate). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'スペースの設定を更新します' (Updates space settings) states the basic purpose with a verb and resource, but it's vague about which specific settings can be updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_space_body', 'update_space_guests', or 'update_space_members', which also update space-related aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing space_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_space_body' or 'update_space_members', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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