Create a workspace

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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the one-time `agentToken` in the response, that it cannot be retrieved again, that it must be shown to the user for saving, and that the current token lacks rights in the new workspace. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 what is created and followed by the highest-risk detail (the one-time token). No filler; every clause conveys a fact the agent must act on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — and it does, including the agentToken, its one-time nature, and its unusability by the calling token. Combined with the grant requirement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and handle the result.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('What the company or site is called.'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, constraint, or naming guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a workspace') plus an important scope detail: it also creates a first project, owned by this token's account. That distinguishes it from the sibling create_project, which creates a project inside an existing workspace.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires the workspace.create grant') and a critical post-condition warning ('this token cannot act in it'), which tells the agent when the returned token is and isn't usable. It does not explicitly contrast with create_project or state when to prefer one, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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