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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the write-entitlement prerequisite, the returned confirmation token, and its five-minute lifetime. The description is consistent with the read-only annotation because it explicitly does not apply the change.

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 with no filler: the action and its scope come first, followed by the confirmation/token mechanics. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value (an exact preview plus a five-minute confirmation token) and the prerequisite entitlement. The main residual gap is what consumes the token — no confirmation tool is referenced by name — but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. 'Named client' hints that a name is expected, but the client_code field, its null default, the 255/100 length limits, and the wrapping 'input' object are all left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Prepare creation of a named client in the connected workspace') and clarifies the scope boundary with 'it does not apply the change', which effectively separates it from the sibling create_client. It never names the sibling directly, so differentiation is by implication rather than explicit routing.

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?

Gives real usage context: it requires confirmation and an existing workspace write entitlement, and it only produces a preview rather than applying the change. It does not explicitly say 'call create_client afterwards to apply' or state what happens when the five-minute token expires, but the when-to-use framing is clear.

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