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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses filtering by write access, the hidden_write_prompts count, the unlock structure showing what another source would enable, and the rule that writes=true prompts must be shown as proposals before execution. This is substantive behavioral context.

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 usage then parameters then return shape. Fairly dense but nearly every sentence adds actionable information; minor length cost from the return-shape enumeration.

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?

Covers purpose, invocation triggers, all three parameters, return structure, and the safety handling of write prompts. Even with an output schema present, the added return semantics (unlock, hidden_write_prompts) make it complete for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameters — and it does: category with five named values and their meanings, language with default, and workspace slug with the single-workspace caveat. Fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 thing: example tasks that work immediately in THIS workspace, matched to connected sources and access rights. Clear and distinct from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from workspace_suggestions or workspace_configure_source.

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?

Explicitly names when to call: user asks 'what can I do here?', after connecting a new source, or when the user doesn't know where to start. Also adds presentation guidance (don't show the full list, offer 2-3 per category, lead with cross-source prompts).

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