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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully qualifies the impact: a request is filed, nothing moves until the owner approves in Connections, and the owner may dismiss it. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotation. It stops short of stating what the caller receives back (a request id? a status?) or whether the caller must be a member of the target workspace.

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 when-to-use condition, then the behavioral caveat, then parameter guidance — a sensible ordering with no filler. The final sentence is dense (company sourcing plus note semantics packed together) but every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally say what a successful call returns, which it does not. With only one required parameter and full schema coverage, the remaining burden is small, and the approval/dismissal lifecycle plus the cross-reference to connections_list_companies covers most of what an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 3 is the floor, but the description adds genuine value: it tells the agent to source `company` from connections_list_companies (or use the exact workspace name) and explains `note` as the reason shown to the owner. It says nothing about `person` or `project`, leaving half the parameters to the schema alone.

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+resource: 'Ask the owner of a Connections workspace to move this connection into it', which is clearly a request-filing operation rather than a move. It distinguishes itself from the closest sibling (connections_switch_workspace) by naming it directly, and the title reinforces the approval flow.

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 an explicit negative condition ('Use it only when connections_switch_workspace cannot make the move'), enumerates the two failure cases (workspace belongs to someone else, switch did not go through), and provides a concrete exemplar trigger (a service the member expects is missing). An agent can select this tool vs. switch/claim without inference.

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