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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect — the newly created workspace becomes active ("switch to it") — and the data-isolation consequence, both of which matter to an agent. It does not cover name-collision behavior or permissions, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the creation action and the auto-switch side effect front-loaded before the isolation rationale.

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 single-parameter creation tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the essential behavior including the active-workspace switch. Remaining gaps (duplicate-name handling, what the call returns) are minor but real.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already carries an example and the 1-60 character constraint at 100% coverage. The description's only added signal is that the name typically refers to the client company, which is marginal beyond the schema's own example — baseline 3 applies.

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 workspace") plus two important scoping facts: it is for another company you hire for, and its roles/shortlist are isolated from your other workspaces. That implicitly separates it from switch_workspace and list_workspaces, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clear condition for use ("for another company you hire for") and the motivation (keeping roles and shortlist apart), which is enough for an agent to decide between this and switching to an existing workspace. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming the alternative tool outright.

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