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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the financial consequence (per-workspace billing on the agency tariff), that the default is a no-op dry run, that rejected entries do not block others, the 25-entry cap, and the full per-entry error-code vocabulary. It also names who may call it and that login_customer_id is filled in automatically — context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the two-step procedure, then field semantics, then errors — a sensible ordering with no filler. It runs long, largely because of the exhaustive error-code enumeration, but each element still earns its place for a destructive, billing-affecting tool.

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 destructive create tool with an output schema present, everything an agent needs to act correctly is stated: the dry-run default, consent gate, permissions, entry limits, partial-failure behavior, validation sources, and remediation hints (re-read workspace_suggestions, split the batch, retry on slug conflict). Return values need not be re-explained since an output schema exists, yet the description still pins down the key response fields.

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 carry the load, and it does: the workspaces item fields are enumerated with name as the only required field, the other IDs marked optional, and connection IDs scoped to the case where several connections see the same account. confirm's two modes and agentur's meaning ('Name des Kontos, wenn der Nutzer mehrere Konten verwaltet') are both explained.

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?

Opening sentence states a concrete verb and resource ('Kunden-Workspaces anlegen — einer je Eintrag, mit den zugeordneten Konten') and the description distinguishes itself from workspace_configure_source and workspace_suggestions by naming both. An agent can identify the operation and its granularity (one workspace per list entry) without opening the schema.

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?

It prescribes an explicit two-step protocol: confirm=false by default is a pure validation pass showing status 'vorgesehen'/'abgelehnt' plus billing delta, and confirm=true only after explicit user consent. It also states the precondition 'Nur für Inhaber und Admins' and routes post-creation source changes to workspace_configure_source, so when/when-not/alternatives are all covered.

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