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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that a same-named workspace is returned rather than duplicated by default, that authorization is restricted to owners/admins, and that plan-limit failures require an owner upgrade. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 information (definition, permission, dedup check, plan limit) plus a doc link. Front-loaded with the core action, though the parenthetical resource definition and the closing reference URL make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return behavior (existing workspace returned instead of a duplicate) and failure modes (plan limit rejection). Combined with complete schema coverage and annotations, nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including reuse's default-true dedup behavior and the organization default) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the reuse default without adding syntax or formatting detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 immediately disambiguates the resource with a parenthetical definition ('the shared space that holds a client's projects, tasks, context and team'), which separates it from the sibling create_project. An agent knows exactly what entity is produced.

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?

Explicit preconditions and alternatives are given: check with whoami or list_projects first, only owners/admins may call it, and calls are rejected when the org hits its client limit. This is the when/when-not/alternatives pattern at full strength.

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