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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), it discloses the optimistic-concurrency requirement (current commandVersion), the post-call obligation to refresh context, and the exact lost-response retry procedure. It does not say whether the rename is reversible or what happens on version mismatch, leaving some destructive-mutation behavior implicit.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: operation, precondition, follow-up, and failure handling in that order. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 six-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, state-change follow-up, and idempotent retry, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits permission/role requirements and the consequence of a stale commandVersion, which would round out the destructive-operation picture.

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 67%, and the description only adds meaning for two of six parameters: it clarifies expectedCommandVersion is the current Workspace commandVersion, and reiterates identical-body/key retry for idempotencyKey. Nothing in the description explains name, reason, accountId, or workspaceId semantics, so it adds modest value over 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 ("Rename an Agency Workspace") with the key precondition ("using its current Workspace commandVersion"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like company_create_workspace or company_archive_workspace. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 operational guidance: use the current commandVersion, refresh context afterward, and on a lost response retry the identical body and idempotencyKey. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative (e.g. archive vs rename) or any role/permission prerequisites, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not routing.

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