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

The description lists the fields that can be updated, which gives some behavioral insight. Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds marginal value by specifying what changes occur. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or whether the update is idempotent (though annotations indicate it is not). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It includes helpful information (HTTP method, path, updatable fields) but could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of details. While not verbose, it does not fully utilize the space to convey necessary information.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, low coverage) and limited annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites (e.g., workspaceId from list), or the context in which this update is appropriate. The agent has to rely on the schema descriptions, which are also sparse. This is a minimal but incomplete effort.

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 only 30%, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. The description mentions only four updatable fields (name, archive state, kind, mode), but the schema has ten parameters, including required ones like idempotency_key and workspaceId. No explanation is given for these, leaving the agent uninformed about how to use them correctly.

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 specifies the HTTP method and resource path, and lists the updatable fields (name, archive state, kind, mode). This clearly indicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete workspace. However, it does not mention all possible updatable fields from the schema (e.g., brand_id, workspace_type), which slightly reduces completeness.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as obtaining the workspaceId via aidelly_list_workspaces, nor does it exclude scenarios where other tools (e.g., create_workspace, delete_workspace) are more appropriate. The instruction for workspace_id in the schema indicates a required step, but this is not in the description.

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