Create a brand workspace

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond those: it switches to the new workspace, isolates data between workspaces, returns the existing workspace on re-run, and clarifies that the research credit cost only applies to draft_brand. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the main action is front-loaded, followed by isolation semantics, usage routing, idempotence, and cost. It is dense yet well-organized with no filler or redundancy.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, switching behavior, isolation, idempotence, and cost thoroughly. The only gap is that it does not state what the tool returns on success beyond the switch, which an agent might need for follow-up calls. Minor gap given the rich context otherwise provided.

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%, and both name and activate already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description's mention of 'switch to it' reinforces the activate parameter's behavior but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Add a NEW brand workspace') and clarifies it is a separate brand/client on the account. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools draft_brand (fill) and update_brand (edit), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

States exactly when to use it ('for a second brand or a new client') and names alternatives with their purposes ('use draft_brand to FILL a workspace, and update_brand to edit one'). It also flags the idempotent re-run behavior and cost implications, leaving no doubt about appropriate invocation.

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