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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/non-idempotent; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the quota error code, the structure of its details payload, the plan gating, default visibility of new content, and an explicit no-retry instruction. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the paragraph is dense and chains parameter semantics into error handling without visual separation. It could be tightened without losing content.

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 create-mutation with an output schema already present, the description covers the remaining ambiguity: visibility of created content, quota behavior, error payload shape, and retry policy. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle failure.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats what the schema already says about 'team' (slug or id, owner/admin, Team plan) and 'name' (defaults to slug), and never mentions the 'why' parameter or 'description', so it adds little meaning beyond 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 (create a workspace) and immediately splits the two modes: personal vs. team-owned. This distinguishes it from siblings like team_create, workspace_update, and workspace_adopt without the agent needing to open any 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?

Explicitly says who may pass 'team' (team owners and admins), what plan is required (Team plan), and what to do on failure — report WORKSPACE_LIMIT_REACHED with its billingUrl, and do not retry. The remedy (deleting a workspace makes room) is stated. This is about as complete as usage guidance gets.

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