create_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a worktree but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond creation. It doesn't state what happens to existing workspaces or if it fails on invalid project_id.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 tool is simple but lacks essential context: it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), return value (e.g., workspace info), or contrast with sibling workspace tools like list_workspaces or delete_workspace. This is incomplete for an agent that must know what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It only implies that project_id refers to a project, but doesn't define its format, required existence, or relation to the workspace. This is insufficient for a parameter with no description in 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 states the verb 'Create', resource 'workspace', and qualifies it as 'isolated Git worktree' for 'making changes to a project'. This is specific and differentiates from siblings like create_project (creates a project) and create_change (creates a change), so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer that a workspace is needed before making changes, which is not stated. The presence of create_project and create_change makes this gap more significant.

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