edgegate_setup_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the scope ('visible to the API key') and the intended side effect of 'locking in' a workspace_id, but does not explain what locking in entails (e.g., persistent state, return format, or whether any data is mutated). This is not contradictory, but it lacks detailed behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second provides essential usage context. It is concise, clear, and well-structured.

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 setup tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core behavior (confirm/list) and the key usage context (run first to lock workspace_id). It could mention return format or side effects, but for this complexity level the information is sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides a complete description of the parameter ('Optional UUID. If omitted, lists all visible workspaces.'), so the description adds only marginal value. The phrase 'which workspace_id the other tools should use' gives a purpose, but overall the parameter semantics are well covered by the schema, making the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Confirm or list EdgeGate workspaces visible to the API key.' It uses a specific verb ('confirm or list') and resource ('workspaces'), and differentiates itself from 'edgegate_create_workspace' by focusing on visibility and confirmation. The additional context about locking in workspace_id further clarifies its 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Run this first in a fresh conversation to lock in which workspace_id the other tools should use.' This provides clear context and a specific timing instruction. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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