create_workspace

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond them: the required 'all workspaces' authorization scope and that the workspace is user-owned, which the annotations do not convey.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then the authorization precondition, then how to use the result. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the return value is for ('Use the returned id as `workspace`'). Combined with the auth precondition and annotations covering the mutation profile, it is nearly complete, missing only edge cases like duplicate-name behavior.

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 67%, with the two optional params documented in the schema itself and `name` self-evident. The description only indirectly touches parameter semantics via the returned-id/`workspace` link and the 'first project' note, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new workspace') and adds scope detail ('with a first project, owned by the user'). It is clear what gets created, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_project tool beyond the parent resource.

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?

It provides a concrete precondition ('Only works when the user authorized access to all workspaces') and a follow-up action ('Use the returned id as `workspace` in other tools'). This gives clear context, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the auth gate.

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