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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it defines the return shape ({eligible, blockers}) and enumerates concrete blocker causes (product in use, forbidden source/destination), which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of permissions/rate-limit detail.

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?

Front-loads the key concept ('Dry run') and packs return-shape and failure semantics into two tight sentences. The trailing '[#1e988c]' artifact is stray noise that detracts slightly from otherwise clean structure.

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 read-only check tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and blocker meaning that the agent needs. With annotations covering the safety profile and a fully-described schema, the definition is sufficient, though it could explicitly link to move_design_to_workspace as the follow-up action.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the optional source_workspace caveat. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, resource, and scope: a dry-run report of whether a design can be moved to another workspace. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like move_design_to_workspace (the actual mutation) and copy_design_to_workspace (the fallback), so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Clearly frames this as a pre-flight check ('Dry run... without changing anything') and tells the agent what to do on failure ('so copy instead'). It does not explicitly name the sibling tools to run before/after, so a small inference remains, but the when-to-use context is strong.

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