Update Workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states that an update occurs. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, optimistic-concurrency behavior via fingerprint, or what happens on conflict.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple mutation, though it could add behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, four required IDs, no annotations, and a nested unconstrained workspace object, one sentence is insufficient. It omits how this differs from bulk_update_workspace, the significance of fingerprint, and the behavior/return of the operation; the output schema does not compensate for missing usage and safety context.

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 the schema already documents account_id, container_id, workspace_id, fingerprint, and the workspace object. The description adds the useful hint that the updatable fields are name or description, but this is marginal because the schema already says the workspace object contains 'fields to change.'

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('workspace'), and the typical fields ('name or description'), so it is not a tautology. It distinguishes the tool from sibling workspace operations and other resource updates, though it does not explicitly contrast with bulk_update_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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bulk_update_workspace or sync_workspace. The description implies a single-workspace field update, but it gives no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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