workspace_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Upsert it' usefully discloses that resolving also writes/refreshes a workspace record (a side effect not implied by 'resolve' alone), and 'deterministic' hints at idempotency. However it doesn't state what gets created or overwritten, whether display_name refresh is destructive, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and its side effect are stated 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the schema covers both params. But for a tool that performs an upsert with no annotations, the description should say more about the write side effect (idempotency, what is created/updated) to be complete.

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 both parameters (project_root and display_name) are already fully documented, including the sha256(realpath) derivation. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: resolve a project_root into a deterministic workspace_id, plus an upsert. This is clearly distinct from sibling workspace_list. It doesn't name an alternative explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as workspace_list. The agent must infer that this is the registration/derivation entry point.

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