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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the created UT is a PREPARING draft, begins with an empty scenario, requires member access for team workspaces, and follows a specific lifecycle (draft → build → review → start sessions). This goes beyond the minimal annotation and helps the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is a single paragraph with three concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential workflow and workspace details. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition.

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, the description covers the draft state, required/optional fields, workflow, and workspace selection. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of what the response contains (e.g., new UT ID), but the workflow implies subsequent interactions. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for operational use.

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 only 20% (workspaceId). The description compensates by mentioning all optional parameters (background, hypotheses, recruitmentCriteria) and clarifying workspaceId's default behavior and where to obtain it (from list_workspaces). It does not deeply explain each string field, but names are self-explanatory and the added context is valuable.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a usability test as a PREPARING draft' with a specific verb (create), resource (usability test), and state (PREPARING draft). It also lists required and optional fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_task or update_ut by outlining the next steps in the workflow.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'It starts with an empty scenario — build it out with add_use_case / add_task, then a person reviews the draft and starts sessions in the app.' It also explains when to pass workspaceId (for team workspaces) and references list_workspaces as the source, giving clear when-to-use context and alternatives.

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