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

Only openWorldHint is annotated, so the description carries most of the burden — and it delivers: it discloses the 409 failure condition and its cause (store mapping / existing orders), plus a prerequisite check. It does not state reversibility or required permissions, but the failure semantics are the key behavior an agent needs.

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 action and scope, then the failure/alternative, then the parameter sourcing. Every sentence earns its place, though the trailing '[#8b8b8a]' artifact is noise and the third sentence is dense.

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 an openWorld mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, failure mode, fallback tool, prerequisite check, and parameter sourcing — everything needed to invoke correctly. No output schema means return-value explanation is unnecessary.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces destination sourcing via list_my_workspaces and when to pass source_workspace, but this largely restates the schema rather than adding meaning beyond it — baseline 3 applies.

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+scope: 'Move a generated design image to another workspace (agency accounts).' This clearly distinguishes it from copy_design_to_workspace and check_design_move without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly covers when it fails (409 blocking list, when a product using the design is mapped to a store or has orders), the conditional alternative (use copy instead), and the prerequisite tool (check_design_move first). Also routes to list_my_workspaces for the destination uuid.

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