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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: the create/update duality, that the workspace is derived rather than supplied, that the create response reports the resulting workspace, and the distinction between null and omitted folderId. It stops short of warning that an update with a new body overwrites the existing markdown, which would have closed the destructive-behavior gap for an agent.

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?

The create-vs-update rule leads, and each subsequent clause covers a distinct decision the caller must make (required fields, workspace derivation, folder behavior). No sentence is restated or filler, even though the description is dense.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the operation modes, both required-field rules, all optional parameters, and even the one return value an agent needs (the workspace assigned on create). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry all five parameters and it does: id toggles create vs update, title is mandatory, body is markdown, projectId is mandatory on create and sourced from list_projects, and folderId's null vs omitted semantics are spelled out. This effectively compensates for the absent schema documentation.

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 first sentence names a concrete verb and resource and splits the tool's two modes precisely: create when no id is supplied, update when an id is. It also routes the agent to the correct siblings (list_projects, list_doc_folders) so save_doc is distinguishable from save_doc_folder and save_project.

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?

Explicit conditions are given for every branch: projectId is required only when creating, folderId null means root while omitting it means leave in place, and moving a document requires calling with id + title + folderId. The helper tools needed to obtain projectId and folderId are named outright.

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