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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false, the description reveals that the created UT is a PREPARING draft with an empty scenario, defaults to the personal workspace, and requires team membership for team workspaces. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core action and state are front-loaded, and the workflow guidance and workspace rule each add distinct value.

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 minimal schema, no output schema, and one required parameter, the description covers the draft state, subsequent build steps, and workspace targeting. A minor gap is that it does not mention what the response returns, such as the new UT id needed for follow-up add_use_case/add_task calls.

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 low, but the description names all five parameters, indicates that title is required and the others are optional, and gives workspaceId meaningful context: it defaults to the personal workspace and can come from list_workspaces. It does not deeply define background/hypotheses/recruitmentCriteria, but their names and optional status are sufficient.

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 action — 'Create a usability test as a PREPARING draft' — and clarifies that it starts with an empty scenario. This clearly distinguishes it from update_ut, add_use_case, and add_task.

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 a clear workflow: create the draft, build it out with add_use_case/add_task, then have a person review it before sessions start. It also explains when to pass workspaceId and where to get it. It does not explicitly mention 'use update_ut for existing tests,' but the lifecycle is implied.

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