workshop_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a mutation. It does not state whether a rename requires ownership or admin rights, whether the change is reversible, whether an omitted field (e.g. name) leaves the existing value untouched, or what happens if workshop_id is invalid. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why so much behavioral information is missing rather than a sign of disciplined concision.

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 no annotations, no output schema, zero schema description coverage, and a required identifier, the description is not complete enough. An agent cannot tell how to identify the workshop beyond guessing at workshop_id, what permissions are needed, or what the result of a successful update looks like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It conveys the meaning of 'name' (rename) and 'description' (change its description) but says nothing about 'workshop_id', which is the sole required parameter and the key that selects the target workshop. One of three parameters is effectively undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: renaming a workshop or changing its description. It clearly implies an update of an existing workshop, which separates it from workshop_create and workshop_delete in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 use this over workshop_create, workshop_delete, or the unrelated spool_update/machine_assign_workshop tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when an agent should reach for this tool. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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