Create Workspace Blueprint

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that this is a composite of multiple folder creations, hinting at multi-step behavior, but it does not say whether the operation is atomic, what happens if a child folder name collides with an existing one, or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the wrapper relationship placed immediately after where it is most useful for disambiguation.

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 simple convenience wrapper with full schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and invoke it. The only shortfall is the absence of failure/collision semantics for a tool that creates several folders in one call.

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 100%, so all three parameters (workspaceId, rootFolderName, childFolderNames) are already documented, including the AFFINE_WORKSPACE_ID fallback. The description only restates the required/optional split implied by the schema, adding no new syntax, naming-constraint, or ordering semantics.

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 (Create) plus the resource (AFFiNE organize folder blueprint) and immediately defines the shape: one root folder plus optional children. The second sentence explicitly positions it as a wrapper around create_folder, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without inspecting either schema.

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?

Calling it a 'wrapper around create_folder' implies the choice (use this for multi-folder setup, plain create_folder for a single folder), but the description never states that when-to-use explicitly, nor does it mention anything about when not to use it (e.g., when child folders already exist or when folders must be created with differing settings).

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