Create workspace (🟡 write)

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the result is an empty draft and nothing is published, and dry_run defaults to true so the call only previews unless overridden. That default-preview behavior is the single most important thing an agent could miss, and it is stated here. It is consistent with annotations and adds real value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, then the operational caveat about dry_run. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What matters for this write tool is present: draft-only semantics, container format, and the default-preview flag. Minor gap: it never states that a real creation requires dry_run=false explicitly, nor what happens on a name collision.

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%, so the schema alone tells the agent nothing. The description compensates for two of the four parameters: it gives the container format ("GTM-XXXXXXX or accounts/<a>/containers/<c>") and clarifies dry_run's default preview semantics. It says nothing about `name` or the optional `description` field, so the compensation is only partial.

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+resource ("Create a new empty workspace") and immediately scopes it as a draft where "nothing is published", which separates it from creation/publish siblings like gtm_create_version and gtm_publish_version. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the dry_run note hints that a real creation requires dry_run=false, but the description never says when to pick this tool over the many other gtm_* creation tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the container must exist). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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