create_version

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 mentions 'creating a version for publication preparation,' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing versions), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., locks the workspace), or rate limits. The description is too vague to guide safe and effective use.

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, concise sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by clarifying what 'version' means in this system.

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?

Given the complexity of a write operation (creating a version) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., version ID, status), error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., after creating a version, what next?). For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, more context is needed for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented in Japanese (e.g., accountId, containerId, workspaceId as required; name and notes as optional). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('create a version') and the target ('workspace changes'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like create_container or create_tag by specifying it's about versioning workspace changes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'version' entails in this context (e.g., a snapshot, release candidate).

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 minimal guidance, only implying this is for 'preparing for publication' of workspace changes. It doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like directly publishing or saving drafts, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace with changes). No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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