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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes genuinely new behavior: the idempotency-key retry contract, which the schema only hints at. Minor tension with idempotentHint=false is resolved by the explicit 'same idempotency_key' qualifier (different keys still create distinct workspaces), so this is added context rather than a contradiction.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action leads the text with the retry guarantee second. Every clause earns its place by adding either scope or behavioral 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 43% schema coverage, the description is thin: it omits the meaning of workspace_type and brand_id and says nothing about what a successful creation returns (an id the agent presumably needs for subsequent calls). It is adequate for a simple create but leaves real gaps.

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 43%, so the description should compensate but only clarifies idempotency_key semantics, which is the parameter most likely to be misused. Nothing is said about the required 'name' constraint (1-100 chars), the workspace_type enum (traditional vs agentic), brand_id, or the workspace_id note about operating context.

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 ('Create a new workspace') and adds ownership scope ('owned by the API key owner'), which tells the agent whose account the resource lands in. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling workspace tools (get/update/delete/list_workspaces), but the verb+resource is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Implies usage via the retry guidance ('a repeat call with the same idempotency_key returns the original result'), which tells the agent this is the entry point for provisioning and that retries are safe with the key. It never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what preconditions (permissions, plan limits, brand_id context) must hold.

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