update_workspace_action

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known, but the description adds the crucial behavioral trait that all fields are overwritten, meaning omitted fields reset to defaults/null. It also provides a concrete metadata example. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand side effects.

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 extremely concise: a two-sentence purpose and overwrite warning, a one-line workspace_id hint, and a metadata example. All content is front-loaded and earns its place, with zero fluff. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 an update tool with six parameters and a nested metadata object, the description covers the overwrite behavior and gives a metadata format example, but omits how to obtain action_id (presumably from list_workspace_actions) and the semantics of optional fields like details and hub_profile_ids. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains workspace_id (target workspace, get from list_workspaces) and gives a metadata example, but does not clarify action_id, title, details, or hub_profile_ids beyond their schema titles. It adds partial meaning but leaves several parameters under-explained, especially the required action_id and title.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Update a workspace automation action') and adds a critical behavioral note ('All fields are overwritten'). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like create_workspace_action, but the verb 'update' combined with the overwrite warning makes the intent unambiguous, and the sibling set includes obvious create/delete counterparts.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_workspace_action for new actions, delete_workspace_action for removal). It only hints at fetching workspace IDs from list_workspaces(), but does not mention prerequisites like obtaining an action_id or when not to use it. The overwrite warning is useful but not a usage rule.

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