Workspace

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description includes create, delete, and bootstrap actions, which are clearly not read-only. This is an annotation contradiction. The description does not address side effects or mutation behavior.

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 long run-on list of actions with minor qualifiers. It lacks structured breakdown (e.g., grouping by read vs write) and is not front-loaded with essential info. Each sentence earns its place but poorly organized.

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 18 parameters and multiple actions, the description does not explain how parameters relate to actions, nor does it describe return values (no output schema). It fails to provide enough context for correct invocation, especially for write actions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond listing actions; parameters are not linked to specific actions. No additional semantic value.

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 it's for 'Workspace management' and enumerates distinct actions (list, get, create, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'project' or 'entity'. However, it lacks a concise verb+resource summary.

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?

Only two actions have usage constraints ('team plans only' for team_members, 'admin only' for index_settings). No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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