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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds the ownership detail ('owned by the authenticated user') and the conditional usage hint, which are useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on duplicate names, whether creation is immediate, or any side effects beyond creation.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is a single short clause. Every word earns its place.

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 simple create operation with two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention what the response contains, but the output schema likely covers that. The usage condition adds valuable context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Workspace name' and 'Optional workspace description'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new workspace') and the resource ('workspace'), with the ownership detail ('owned by the authenticated user') adding useful context. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the verb 'create' and resource 'workspace' are distinct enough among the listed tools.

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?

The description provides a clear usage condition: 'Use this if list_my_workspaces returns none.' This gives the agent a concrete trigger for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the conditional guidance is strong and practical.

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