Act on a project workspace

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description discloses that closing and arbitration are irreversible and affect both ratings, and instructs the agent to confirm with the user. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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 dense but every clause earns its place, grouping related actions and front-loading the core purpose. The warning about irreversibility is placed at the end but is still prominent and actionable.

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 tool with nine actions and seven parameters, the description covers action semantics, key side effects, and a safety warning. It does not specify state prerequisites for each action, such as which actions require accepted conditions first, but the enum and schema provide enough for an agent to proceed safely in most cases.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some action-to-parameter context (extend moves the delivery date, request_arbitrage escalates a dispute) but does not systematically map every parameter to its action. Most parameter meaning still comes from the schema.

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 clear purpose ('Drives the working agreement') and enumerates every action with its role, from negotiation to closing review to arbitration. It distinguishes workspace_action from sibling tools by scoping it to the workspace lifecycle and naming the specific verbs an agent can invoke.

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?

It gives clear context for when each action is relevant (negotiation, extension, ending, review, dispute escalation) and explicitly warns to confirm irreversible actions with the user first. It does not name alternatives among siblings, but the action catalog makes the tool's scope obvious.

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