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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine behavioral context: the 1,000-character cap on the prompt and the fact that the prompt is only surfaced on a Share of the workspace. It does not say what happens on duplicate names or whether creation returns an identifier needed by add_note/add_panel.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the naming rule, with no filler. The "Banquish shows it only on a Share of this Workspace" sentence is slightly awkward phrasing but carries unique information.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive create tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters and the one non-obvious side effect (prompt visibility). The remaining gap is the return value / how the new workspace is referenced afterward, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 0% (both params are bare strings), so the description must carry the load and it largely does: it explains the naming convention for `name` and the source/format/length limit for `prompt` (max 1,000 chars, not encoded in the schema). It stops short of saying whether `prompt` is optional or how it affects behavior.

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+resource ("Create a Workspace") that is unambiguously distinct from siblings like rename_workspace, read_workspace and list_workspaces. It also adds naming intent ("named plainly after the task"), but doesn't state what a Workspace is or what creating one produces.

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?

"By default use one per answer" gives a real default-behavior rule, which is more than most create tools offer. However, it never addresses when NOT to create one (e.g. reuse an existing workspace via list_workspaces/read_workspace) or when to prefer rename_workspace instead.

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