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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructive, open-world, non-idempotent), so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses the return values (project_id, view_id, resource_url), the null case for resource_url when no view is created, and the automatic first-workspace fallback, all of which go 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by adding a distinct fact (structure rules, requirement, return shape, default behavior). No filler or redundancy.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, structural requirement, returns, and workspace default are all covered. It stops short of noting permission/auth needs or side effects on existing content, but those are largely carried by the annotations.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description largely restates the same heading semantics and workspace fallback from the schema, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Create a new xTiles project from Markdown") and defines the exact heading-to-entity mapping. This clearly places it at the project level versus sibling tools, but it never names an alternative (e.g., xtiles_create_view_from_markdown) to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite (at least one `##` heading, or the project cannot be created) and explains the workspaceId fallback, which contextualizes usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance, leaving the agent to infer this tool's place among the many other create_*_from_markdown variants.

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