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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds actionable meaning on top: the post-call context refresh requirement and the exact lost-response recovery rule (retry the identical body and idempotencyKey, never mint a new key). It does not cover permission/role requirements or what a stale expectedCommandVersion produces, which keeps it at 4.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites, then failure handling — nothing redundant. The phrasing is telegraphic ("Use the Account commandVersion ... and a reason") and harder to parse than it needs to be.

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-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the essential operational context: where the command version comes from, the required reason, the mandatory context refresh, and idempotent retry. Missing are authorization expectations and what a version-conflict response looks like, so not fully complete.

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 60%: accountId, idempotencyKey and expectedCommandVersion are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them (commandVersion source, idempotency retry rule). The undocumented parameters, name and reason, get no added meaning beyond their length constraints. Baseline 3 is 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 ("Create an Agency client Workspace"), which separates it from sibling reads like company_get_workspace_context and mutations like company_rename_workspace or company_archive_workspace. It does not explicitly name a sibling or say what it is not, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 concrete preconditions and sequencing: take the Account commandVersion from company_list_contexts, supply a reason, and refresh context afterward. That is real routing guidance rather than implied usage. It lacks an explicit "do not use this when..." exclusion, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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