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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent creation operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the workspace is private and expiring, and its capability is sensitive enough to be saved only in the user's AI conversation. It still omits expiry behavior and capability format.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted language. The core action is front-loaded, and the capability-handling instruction follows immediately.

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 should carry more of the return-value burden. It mentions the 'capability' but does not define its format, explain workspace expiry duration, or clarify how the workspace is used with sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps for 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description adds a useful hint that the result includes a 'capability' to preserve, but there are no parameters to explain.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a private, expiring workspace.' The qualifiers 'private' and 'expiring' add meaningful scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from close_workspace or explain how the workspace relates to 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?

It gives a security-handling instruction ('Save its capability only in the user's AI conversation') but says nothing about when to create a workspace instead of using other tools, nor when not to use it. There is no explicit alternative or lifecycle guidance.

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