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

Annotations only provide false hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful non-obvious side effects: the caller becomes owner and the created workspace becomes the active one. It does not mention duplicate-name handling or failure behavior, but the main side effects are disclosed.

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 description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and then adds ownership and switching side effects. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter create tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it creates, its side effect, and ownership. It could mention what happens if a duplicate name is used, but that is not necessary for a basic agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented as 'Workspace name.' The description adds no extra constraints or format details for the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action (create), a specific resource (a new Survey Light workspace), and the key consequence (you become its owner and switch to it). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like switch_workspace, rename_workspace, and list_workspaces.

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 wording makes the core use case clear: create a new workspace and switch to it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as switch_workspace for existing workspaces, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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