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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false; the description adds the substantive behavior an agent actually needs: role-gated authorization, the reuse-instead-of-duplicate default, and a hard failure mode (plan limit rejection requiring an owner upgrade). None of that is recoverable 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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it makes, who may call it, the pre-check/duplicate behavior, and the quota failure. No repetition of the title and no filler.

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 create tool with no output schema and no destructive annotation, the description still covers authorization, idempotency, quota failure, and prerequisite discovery calls. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly or route to whoami/list_projects.

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, and the description goes slightly beyond it by explaining the consequence of the `reuse` default (an existing same-named workspace is returned) rather than just restating the default. It does not add syntax or format notes for `organization` or `description`.

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 new client workspace') and parenthetically defines the resource in terms of what it holds, which cleanly separates it from sibling create_project. An agent can distinguish it from create_project/create_task without opening a 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?

Names prerequisites (only owners/admins), prescribes a pre-check step ('Call whoami or list_projects first'), and discloses the default idempotent behavior that will silently satisfy the call. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-expect-a-new-row guidance, not inference.

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