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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: email OTP mechanics, possible 402/503 responses, the fact that the code authorizes only the named grant_id, and the returned mcp_config header for header-based clients. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations do not capture.

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 purpose, then gives a compact numbered flow with no wasted sentences. The docs link and mcp_config note are operationally useful rather than filler.

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?

Complete for a two-step authentication tool with no output schema: it explains prerequisites, both steps, error conditions, scope limitation, and the next action. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds useful semantic context, especially that the code activates the named grant_id only and authorizes nothing else, though most individual parameter details are already covered by the schema.

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 and resource: accept a namespace invitation for the authenticated account's verified email. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming list_invites as the source of grant_id and switch_workspace as the follow-up step.

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 defines the two-step flow with step='request' then step='confirm', including the specific conditions and likely error outcomes (402 needs Collaborator, 503 mailer failure). It also names the prerequisite sibling list_invites and the post-accept action switch_workspace.

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