chap.workspace.create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the call returns a workspace id used by later calls, and 'create' implies a mutating/persistent side effect. However, it does not mention idempotency, error behavior, or any consequences of overwriting an existing workspace id, which are relevant for a creation operation.

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 a single well-structured sentence that communicates the resource being created, its conceptual role, and the important return value. There is no fluff or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core return value and conceptual role, and the schema richly documents all parameters and defaults. For a creation tool with no output schema, the main ingredient—what it returns and why that matters—is present. It is slightly shy of a 5 because it does not address edge behaviors such as what happens when an explicit workspace id already exists, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 every parameter, including defaults and mode-specific behavior, is documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level details, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a workspace.' It further clarifies what a workspace is—the container for participants, tasks, and audit log—and distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like chap.workspace.describe or chap.workspace.set_profiles. The return value is also identified, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description provides clear contextual guidance by framing a workspace as the container for collaborative work, so an agent can infer this tool is for starting a new piece of collaborative work. It does not explicitly name conditions or alternatives, but among the siblings this is the only creation call for workspaces, so the usage context is clear with no exclusions.

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