dsh_create_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the side effect of creating a folder unless create_dir is false, states idempotent semantics for repeat calls, and flags an external plugin dependency. It omits error/permission behavior, but the important non-obvious traits are covered.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the conditional side effect, idempotency, and the dependency requirement in descending order of importance.

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 three-parameter registration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, idempotency, and prerequisites. Only failure modes (invalid path, missing plugin) are left unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema (path, title default, create_dir default). The description only restates the create_dir behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register a folder as a workspace') plus the surface it affects (the DeepSeek Harness sidebar), which cleanly separates it from siblings like dsh_rename_workspace and dsh_list_workspaces. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer in a given situation, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 supplies real usage context: it is idempotent ('an already registered folder returns its existing workspace'), so an agent knows repeated calls are safe, and it names a precondition ('Needs the dsh-baton-host plugin'). It does not, however, say when to prefer or avoid this tool relative to alternatives.

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