update_space

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' which implies mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool; an agent cannot understand the full impact of calling it.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. The key information is front-loaded: the verb and resource are immediately apparent. There is zero waste, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description is extremely brief and does not explain what happens after a successful update, what errors might occur, or any prerequisites such as ownership or permissions. For an agent to safely invoke this, more context is needed about the effect of the update and the expected response.

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% – all three parameters have descriptive text in the schema. The description mentions 'title or access mode' which maps to the title and access parameters, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the verb 'update', the resource 'space', and the specific attributes 'title or access mode'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_space, delete_space, and other update_* tools for different resources. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_space or create_space. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and related tools. The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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