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

Annotations already declare the mutation is non-destructive and non-idempotent, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it explains the downstream effect of the workspace (accounts connected inside) and, unusually usefully, spells out the consequences of the timezone setting on un-offset schedule times and date display. It leaves the approval_required default behavior unaddressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first identifies the resource and its owner, the second names the follow-up tool, the third defines a tricky parameter's effect. No filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 creation mutation with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (presumably a workspace id) even though the mentioned create_connect_link flow depends on it. Between that gap and the silent approval_required default, it is adequate but not complete enough to call the tool confidently end-to-end.

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 75%, with timezone, idempotency_key and approval_required already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description does add real meaning for timezone — how it is interpreted downstream — but says nothing about approval_required's 'default false for agents' semantics or how name is used, so it does not clearly exceed 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 clear verb+resource ("Create a workspace") and adds scope that the name alone doesn't convey: a workspace belongs to a client/agency or brand. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_workspaces or update-style siblings, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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 implies usage (a workspace must exist before its accounts are connected) and points to create_connect_link as the follow-up step. However, it never states when-not to use it — e.g. that an existing workspace should be found via list_workspaces rather than recreated — leaving the agent to infer preconditions.

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