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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-readonly; the description adds the permission gate and the user-confirmation expectation, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose irreversibility, whether a partially-scoped agent can be widened later, or rate/side-effect details an agent might want before a destructive create.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus two short clauses; the scoping rule is embedded right where the relevant parameters are named. Slight density ('capabilities and, with sheetIds / spaceIds / pageIds,') costs a small amount of readability but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter, destructive, output-schema-backed tool, it covers the key non-schema information: who may call it, the confirmation flow, and the visibility scoping model. Remaining gaps (capability write semantics, model/skills defaults) are handled by the schema, so an agent could call this correctly.

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 78%, so the schema largely documents itself. The description adds the meaningful insight that sheetIds/spaceIds/pageIds together define a restricted workspace view, but says nothing about instructions, capabilities, skills, or model beyond what the schema text already conveys.

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 custom agent') and immediately characterizes what the created object is: 'a teammate with its own instructions, capabilities and ... a limited view of the workspace.' No sibling tool overlaps, so no differentiation is required.

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?

Adds real preconditions: 'Owner or an Admin only' and 'Always asks the user first,' which tells the agent to confirm with the user before calling. It does not name alternatives or state when creating an agent is preferable to, say, a plain member invite, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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