update_client_space

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: slug permanence, archive side effects (keeps serving, frees plan slot), unarchive 402-on-full-plan, gate inheritance to existing and future pages, null-to-remove convention, paid-feature restrictions, and 409 name_taken semantics. No behavioral trait an agent needs is left to inference.

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 front-loads the three operations in sentence one, states patch semantics in sentence two, then systematically elaborates caveats per field. At roughly 140 words for a 5-parameter, three-operation tool with multiple error branches, 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and high operational complexity, the description covers all invocation-critical knowledge: error codes (402 plan_password_not_available, 402 plan_viewer_gate_not_available, 402 on full plan, 409 name_taken), side effects, paid-feature conditions, and required-parameter sourcing from list_client_spaces. The only omission — success-response shape — is minor for a mutation tool whose failure modes are fully enumerated.

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 only 20% (id_or_slug alone), so the description must compensate for the other four parameters, and it does comprehensively: name (display-only, slug immutable), archived (serving/plan-slot semantics), password and allowed_email_domain (scope, inheritance, null removal, paywall). The description adds meaning far beyond the bare type declarations in the schema.

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 opening sentence names three concrete operations — rename, archive/unarchive, and viewer-gate setting — each bound to the client-space resource. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from create_client_space, delete_client_space, and list_client_spaces without opening any schema.

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 gives clear context for use: mutate an existing space's name, archive state, or access gates, with 'omit a field to leave it untouched' framing the patch-style semantics. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the operation list makes the boundary obvious. The 409 directive ('report that rather than retrying with a variation') is actionable usage guidance.

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