maket_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses that locking makes every doc-scoped mutation refuse until unlocked, that focus mutates active doc/page, and that ack_messages drops ids from 'whichever bucket they live in'. It also surfaces the `edited`/`editedAt` semantics and the instruction to act on current text. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the when-to-use clause, then a scannable per-action breakdown where each line earns its place. Dense but not padded; slightly long, though the length is justified by six distinct actions.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the message payload shape (docName, pageIndex, elementId, text, ts, edited flags) that an agent would otherwise have to guess. Safety/error behavior and lock interaction detail beyond mutations refusing are the only modest gaps.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: per-action parameter usage for `doc`, `page`, `locked`, and `ids`, plus the non-obvious rule that omitting `doc` in list_messages widens to all messages. It goes beyond restating the schema descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific scope statement ('every session-level interaction with the live workspace') and enumerates the six concrete actions (focus, state, lock, fit_view, list_messages, ack_messages). It explicitly names the sibling it is not — persistent CRUD belongs to maket_doc — so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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' clause tells the agent exactly when this tool applies, and the follow-up sentence draws the boundary against maket_doc for persistent document CRUD. Each action is annotated with its own condition (e.g. list_messages with/without `doc`, lock omit-to-toggle), leaving little to inference.

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