create_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It does disclose that unknown keys are rejected by the API, giving a clear constraint. However, it omits other key behaviors such as whether creation is idempotent, whether name uniqueness is enforced, or any permission requirements. It covers some ground but not enough for a fully transparent description.

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 compact, with the one-sentence purpose at the front. The second sentence is dense but necessary, explaining the strictness constraint in one clause. It avoids redundant phrasing and is easy to scan.

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 create operation with a full input schema and an output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It could mention that this is the counterpart to update_workspace for modifications, but that is a minor omission. The warning about strict API rejection is a useful contextual clue.

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 each parameter is well-documented. The description adds a valuable note that selection fields are exactly what ATLAS restores when the workspace is applied, reinforcing the meaning of these parameters beyond simple names. This is a modest addition, so a baseline 3 is 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 opening 'Create a workspace.' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from delete_workspace and update_workspace by action. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous. The added sentence about selection fields further clarifies what the tool does without confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_workspace. The description implies creation but does not state 'use this to create a new workspace; use update_workspace to modify an existing one.' The only contextual hint is to use the provided arguments instead of a free-form blob, which is a usage fact, not a when-to-use directive.

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