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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false): the ownership precondition ('Both must be yours'), the plan-slot cost ('Links consume no plan slot'), the required scope ('company_context:write'), and the downstream effect (workspace turns inherit company facts, updates propagate). That is exactly the extra information annotations cannot convey.

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 action, then usage trigger, then effect, then preconditions and permission. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the middle sentence about update propagation is slightly verbose for what it conveys.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is linked, prerequisites (ownership, scope), side effects (no plan slot, inherited facts), and lifecycle (create_company → link). Only the behavior on an already-linked pair is left to the idempotent annotation.

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%, and the schema already documents both UUIDs with their source listing tools. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format, no edge cases for mismatched ownership), so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema baseline.

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 both resources ('Link one of your workspaces to one of your companies') and clarifies the semantic meaning of the link as client context. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the unlink_workspace_company sibling, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 concrete triggering conditions: 'Use it after create_company, or when the user says a workspace is for a given client.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or direct pointer to the unlink/alternative sibling for disambiguation.

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