createTransport

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

The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains ownership, open persistence until release, team visibility, and manual deletion, which are exactly the side effects an agent must understand before calling this tool.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes either lifecycle, usage, or cautionary guidance. There is no filler or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, and usage well. The only notable gap is that it signals the request number can be reused without explicitly stating what the tool returns, which would make the contract even clearer.

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 parameters are already documented at a basic level. The description adds some workflow context about reusing the resulting request number, but it does not add deeper meaning about how the fields relate or their expected formats.

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-resource pair: 'Create a workbench request' and adds lifecycle details ('becomes yours and stays open until it is released'). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with createTransportsConfig.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: create one per piece of work, reuse the number for related writes, and ask the user first if a request already exists. It also warns about the consequence of unwanted requests, which strongly helps an agent decide correctly.

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