medeval_create_workspace

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds behavioral nuance: the workspace is 'isolated', and creation must follow an explicit user request, which provides guidance beyond the binary annotation flags. No contradiction exists; the description aligns with the mutation hint and adds meaningful context.

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 single, extremely concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key condition ('only after an explicit user request') immediately after the verb. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximal information density in minimal space.

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?

Given the tool is a simple create operation with an output schema available, the description alone is minimally sufficient: it states the action and when to perform it. However, the complete absence of parameter explanations means agents lack essential context for constructing a correct call. The description does not cover what happens after creation (e.g., returns workspace ID?) but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is serviceable but leaves notable gaps for a tool with unannotated parameters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (title, metadata, workspace_id). For a required parameter like 'title', there is no hint about what constitutes a valid title (e.g., format, length, purpose). The description carries zero parameter information, leaving the agent to infer semantics entirely from parameter names, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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'), a clear resource ('isolated workspace'), and a specific condition ('only after an explicit user request') that distinguishes it from sibling read/list/get tools such as medeval_get_workspace and medeval_list_projects. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

Provides a clear contextual condition by specifying 'only after an explicit user request' – which tells the agent when it is appropriate to call this tool. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if a workspace already exists, perhaps use get_workspace). This is still strong guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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