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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the rest — and it does, disclosing the two-hour lifetime and that the ID/links are access-granting secrets that must not be published. It omits what happens after expiry and whether a workspace can be reclaimed, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose and return values first, ordering guidance second, a security caveat third. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration; the description still names them for orientation. For a zero-parameter creation tool with an expiry and secret-handling nuance, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete.

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 private two-hour workspace') and names the outputs ('its ID and CAD upload page'). It also positions itself against siblings by telling the agent to call it before load_sample or import_part, so an agent can distinguish it from create_layout and the rest without opening a 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?

'Start here before loading a sample or importing a user's CAD part' gives explicit sequencing relative to named sibling tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., reusing an existing workspace ID), which keeps it from a 5.

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