update_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds no additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, side effects, or reversibility beyond the basic update action, offering minimal value beyond 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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter hint is efficiently included. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter update tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential: what it does, how to get the required ID, and implicitly what 'name' refers to. It does not describe the return value or any validation rules, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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 0%, the description is the primary source for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains workspace_id as 'target workspace ID' and suggests how to obtain it, and name is implicitly understood as the display name. However, it does not elaborate on constraints (e.g., length limits, uniqueness) or the exact format expected, so it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Update a workspace's display name') with a clear verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from other workspace-related updates (e.g., update_workspace_invitation, update_workspace_action) by focusing on the display name field.

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 a usage hint by pointing to list_workspaces() for obtaining valid workspace IDs, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage to be implied from the clear purpose.

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