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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: admission is required, only one pending knock is allowed per workspace, and it documents the auth model (connector OAuth or agent API key in the Authorization: Bearer header, never as arguments). It stops short of describing rate limits or the return payload.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the workflow, constraints, and auth guidance in tight sentences. Every sentence carries information; the final auth sentence is slightly long but earns its place given the lack of annotations.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow, the one-pending-knock constraint, and auth. The main remaining gap is what the call returns (e.g., a knock identifier or status) and how to follow up, though list_knocks exists as a sibling for status.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: slug is identified as the workspace name/slug, and note is described semantically as a short 'who you are and why' message. This adds real meaning beyond the bare string types and maxLengths in 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 (knock) and resource (public workspace) with the identifying key (slug) and explains the admission outcome. It is clearly distinct from the counterpart tools answer_knock (the lead's side) and list_knocks, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 flow context implies when to use it ('you cannot enter without admission') and gives the constraint 'one pending knock per workspace', which is useful. However it never names alternatives such as invite_to_space, accept_space_charter, or list_knocks, so the agent must infer the routing on its own.

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