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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by explaining that the new workspace starts from the latest container version and that changes must be rebuilt manually afterward. Permission/auth requirements and what the returned workspace looks like are not mentioned, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and its basis, then the recovery rationale, then the parameter note. No filler, though the trailing 'workspace:' note reads like an appended afterthought rather than integrated guidance.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the recovery workflow is well covered. However, for a creation tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving the required 'name' and the 'description' field entirely undefined is a real gap an agent cannot resolve from the definition alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it explains 'workspace' as the client workspace slug that is optional when a single workspace exists. The required 'name' parameter and the 'description' parameter are given no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 ('Neuen GTM-Workspace ... anlegen') plus the basis for it ('auf Basis der neuesten Container-Version'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from gtm_sync_workspace by framing itself as the recovery path when a workspace is no longer syncable, though the sibling is not named directly.

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 concrete when-to-use condition ('Recovery, wenn ein Workspace nicht mehr synchronisierbar ist') and a sequenced next step ('Änderungen dort neu aufbauen, dann gtm_create_version'). It lacks an explicit 'do not use if the workspace is still healthy / use gtm_sync_workspace instead' clause, so the exclusion is only implied.

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