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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: the tool may return a `needs_confirmation` state, and three or more examples per answer cause the shim to "build on its own." The auto-build behavior and confirmation interlock are not present in the annotations or schema, so this is genuine added context.

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, front-loaded with the creation act and the inputs, followed by the follow-up step and the confirmation caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the phrase "it builds on its own" is slightly vague for a behavioral claim.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and does flag the `needs_confirmation` outcome, which the schema's approvalId field complements. It stops short of describing the happy-path response or what state the shim is in after creation (draft vs active), which an agent planning follow-up calls might want.

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 83%, so parameters are largely self-documenting; the description names the three required parameters (name, question, answers) in natural language but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema. The optional workspace, approvalId, and inputsComeFrom parameters are never mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ("Creates a shim") and immediately names the three inputs that constitute it, so the agent knows what it will be building. It is distinguishable from siblings like workbench_shim_add_examples or workbench_shim_get. It never defines what a 'shim' actually is, relying on the question/answers structure to imply a routing/classification artifact.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance ("Add examples afterwards with workbench_shim_add_examples"), which usefully directs the agent's next call. It does not, however, say when to reach for shim_create versus other workbench primitives such as flows or tasks, nor state prerequisites beyond the approval flow.

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