Create a team workspace

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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: return value (id and slug), the fact that switching active workspace is a separate action, and the subtle creatorCanReach failure mode with its security implication (denied on next write, re-auth needed). This goes far beyond what openWorldHint/destructiveHint 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?

The description is a dense but well-structured paragraph. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: action+ownership, auth prerequisite, return+separation concern, comparison to sibling, and failure-mode warning. No filler; sentence order is logical.

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?

For a creation tool with auth requirements and a non-obvious failure mode, this description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, output, related operations, and a warning about allowlist reachability. With an output schema present, the description need not elaborate further on return structure.

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% with clear descriptions for both name and slug, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema (e.g., no mention of validation rules beyond the schema's 409 clash note), but it also does not need to.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new team workspace') and immediately clarifies ownership ('you become its owner'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dropthis_workspaces (list) and dropthis_use_workspace (switch active). This clearly identifies the tool's unique role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (requires team-scoped credential with workspaces:write), when not to (publish-only key cannot create teams), and points to alternatives (dropthis_workspaces to list existing, dropthis_use_workspace to switch). This is textbook usage guidance.

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