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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: payment prerequisite, workspace-pairing requirement, failure on free Hatch workspaces, and the exact return shape. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage conditions, failure mode, alternative, and return value. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation. It covers prerequisites, failure behavior, remediation steps, exclusions, and return format. The only minor gap is the behavior when no name parameter is supplied, but this does not meaningfully hinder an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful combinatory semantics: pass `orgName`, `workspaceName`, or both, and clarifies that omitting each leaves it unchanged. This goes slightly beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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: renames the organization and/or workspace. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from `convert`, which handles hatch URLs, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: after Roost or Roost Audit has been paid, and with a workspace-paired session. It names the billing path (`checkout` with grants, then `poll_checkout`) and the alternative for hatch URLs (`convert`), leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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