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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a contained mutation that does not destroy data. The description adds the failure-condition context, but says nothing about what partial state is re-used or cleaned up on retry, nor whether the idempotency key prevents duplicate restarts. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is fair.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no padding. The trailing phrase "as on the workspace hub" reads as vague UI cross-reference rather than earning 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?

For a mutation with two required, fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves key questions open: what is returned (a job id, a status?), whether the call is synchronous, and how retry interacts with the idempotency key. It needs to carry more weight than it does.

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 description coverage is 0% and neither required parameter is mentioned in the description. The names 'workspace' and 'idempotency_key' are somewhat self-evident, but there is no information on idempotency key scope or reuse window (8-128 chars per schema is only a constraint, not semantics), so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (restart/retry) and resource (workspace setup) plus the precondition for acting (after a failure). This distinguishes it from workspace_get, workspaces_list, and workspace_settings_save, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"after it failed" implies the calling condition, which is genuine usage context rather than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it, whether repeated retries are allowed, or what alternative to reach for if setup is still running or succeeded.

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