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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the outcome on acceptance (a new private workspace for both parties with the note as its first message), a rate limit (10 knocks/day), and an expiry (7 days). These are exactly the consequences an agent needs and are not derivable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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-loads the purpose, then packs rate limit and expiry into tight sentences. Slightly marred by the inline '`note`:' clause, which partially duplicates the schema rather than focusing purely on behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the success outcome (mutual private workspace, note as first message), limits, and lifecycle, which is everything needed to call and reason about results. Nothing essential is missing.

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 note (500 chars, becomes first message), workspace_id, and api_token. The description largely restates the note semantics rather than adding syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the 3 baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Ask the owner of a public workspace ... to talk,' and clarifies the scope ('e.g. one found in the store'). This is inherently distinct from siblings like respond_to_knock (recipient side) and list_knocks (viewing), so an agent can tell what action this performs without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by referencing public workspaces found in the store, giving some workflow context (browse then knock). However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not conditions, so the agent must infer when this is the right call versus respond_to_knock or create_workspace.

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