configure_workspace_list

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which indicate safe retry and write behavior. The description adds '[Write]' which is redundant but consistent. No additional behavioral details (e.g., whether it replaces or merges existing list views) are given, so transparency beyond annotations is minimal.

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 at one sentence plus a note. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it is slightly too terse and could incorporate more helpful information without harming conciseness.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or how the tool handles conflicts (e.g., duplicate titles). For a configuration tool, users need to know whether it creates or updates based on existing records. The description leaves many questions unanswered.

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 100%, with all 5 parameters having descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any further explanation or context for these parameters (e.g., what 'encoded query filter' means). Therefore, the description adds no value beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb (Add or update) and resource (list view in an agent workspace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_workspace and get_workspace by specifying 'list view' as the target. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'list view' and how it differs from other workspace configuration tools.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Among sibling tools, there is no direct equivalent for adding/updating list views, but the description misses the opportunity to clarify that this tool is unique for that purpose.

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