workspace_create

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 does disclose useful traits: isolation, shared repository backing, and the immutability of the returned workspace ID. It omits auth requirements, failure/timeout behavior, idempotency, and lifecycle/cleanup expectations — meaningful gaps for a tool that provisions remote-backed state.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the return-value/usage note follows immediately.

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 creation tool with complete schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and output shape adequately. It is slightly thin on lifecycle context (the workspace_delete sibling implies teardown responsibility) and on operational constraints like timeouts and auth, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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%, so revision, timeoutMs, and repository are already documented including format constraints and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Create") and a specific resource ("isolated managed Git worktree backed by shared repository storage"), plus what it produces ("immutable workspace ID and path"). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings such as workspace_list and workspace_delete, so an agent needs no schema inspection to route correctly.

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 phrase "for use as cwd with existing tools" tells the agent what to do with the returned ID/path, which is genuine invocation context. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisite (e.g. required credentials, cleanup via workspace_delete). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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