Register workspace alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It explicitly lists side effects ('writes an alias row'), output ('alias record details'), and failure modes ('fails if the referenced workspace cannot be resolved or the alias conflicts'), providing comprehensive behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear headings (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the most critical information. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, input details, side effects, output, and failure modes. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use 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 100% with each parameter already described. The description's 'Inputs' section adds minimal value beyond grouping (e.g., 'reason and metadata document why it changed'), but does not provide details not already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the purpose: 'Link a moved or renamed workspace URI to an existing workspace record.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_workspace_aliases and suggest_workspace_aliases.

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 'When to use' section provides clear context: 'call when the same repository appears under a new local path, mount point, or machine-specific URI.' While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, the guidance is specific and actionable.

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