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

Annotations declare a non-read-only but non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: it may return `needs_confirmation`, implying an approval flow mediated by approvalId. It doesn't explain permissions or what else the response contains, so not 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the create action and its inputs, then the follow-up action and the confirmation caveat. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 create tool with no output schema and good schema coverage, the description covers the required inputs, the next-step workflow, and the possibility of a needs_confirmation return. It is nearly complete; only the shape of a successful return and any permission preconditions are left implicit.

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 the schema already documents name, question, answers, workspace, approvalId and inputsComeFrom. The description restates the three required inputs but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making it baseline-adequate rather than additive.

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 (creates) and resource (shim) plus the three inputs it is built from, which distinguishes it from workbench_shim_add_examples and workbench_shim_add_answer by scope. It does not define what a 'shim' is conceptually, but the resource is unambiguous within the workbench namespace.

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?

Gives a clear sequencing rule: create first, then add examples with workbench_shim_add_examples, with a concrete threshold (three or more per answer). No explicit when-not or exclusion versus siblings like workbench_shim_add_answer, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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