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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's job is to add non-obvious behavior — and it does: ownership is attributed to the signed-in person, and the writing connection remains bound to its current workspace until reconnect. That reconnect caveat is exactly the kind of side effect an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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, the action statement front-loaded and the caveat placed immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of outcomes, the description should indicate what comes back (e.g., the new workspace identifier or slug) so the agent knows what it has to work with. It also omits name-uniqueness rules, which determine whether a retry will fail. Given the missing return information and the undocumented single parameter, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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% and there is one required parameter, 'name', whose only constraints are structural (minLength 1, maxLength 60). The description says nothing about what a valid name is — whether it must be unique, whether it acts as a slug or display label, or how collisions are handled. With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new workspace') plus a scope qualifier ('owned by the signed-in person'), which cleanly separates it from list_workspaces and the mutation siblings. It does not explicitly name any alternative, but the create-versus-list distinction is obvious enough that no agent would confuse them.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite/eligibility guidance (who may create workspaces, plan limits). What it does provide is a usage-relevant consequence: the current connection keeps operating in its existing workspace after creation, so the new one is not usable in-session without reconnecting. That is implied guidance rather than stated selection criteria.

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