Sync Workspace

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that unmodified entities are updated in place and that locally changed entities produce merge conflicts rather than being silently overwritten. It omits authorization requirements and reversibility, but for a sync operation the key behavior is clearly and usefully disclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and then adds only the essential behavioral outcome. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 is complete enough for a well-scoped 3-parameter operation, especially given an output schema exists. It covers the main purpose, the mutation behavior, and the conflict path. It does not mention prerequisites such as checking workspace status first, but the essential call context is present.

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 100%, so all three parameters already have meaningful descriptions as numeric account, container, and workspace IDs. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but it also does not need to because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 states a specific action (bring a workspace up to date) against a specific resource (workspace) relative to the latest container version. It also distinguishes the tool from related operations by describing the merge-conflict outcome and explicitly naming resolve_workspace_conflict, so an agent can tell it apart from other workspace tools.

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 first sentence clearly frames when to use the tool: when the workspace should be updated to the latest container version. The second sentence gives conditional guidance by explaining that conflicts require using resolve_workspace_conflict. This is clear context, though it stops short of explicitly enumerating when not to use the tool or contrasting it with alternatives like bulk_update_workspace.

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