add_workspace

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

Only readOnlyHint=false is provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond the word 'additional' (implying additive registration), it does not disclose whether the change is persistent, whether it requires a restart or index refresh, or how duplicates/path errors are handled.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutating registration tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient to call it correctly.

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 0%: 'name' and 'path' have no descriptions, and the description adds nothing about naming conventions, whether the path must be absolute or pre-existing, or format expectations. The two required parameters are essentially undocumented.

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 gives a clear verb ('Register') plus resource ('workspace directory') and scopes it to multi-root monorepos/polyrepos. It implicitly contrasts with the base workspace and with list_workspaces, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'for multi-root monorepos or polyrepos' gives an implied usage context, but there is no statement of when not to use it, prerequisites, or a pointer to list_workspaces for inspecting existing workspaces.

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