Create Workspace Blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it creates a root folder and optional children and wraps create_folder, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or output details. This is minimal added value, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear wrapper note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is adequate. It could further clarify what 'blueprint' means in the AFFiNE context or provide a brief example, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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%, with each parameter already having a clear description (e.g., workspaceId omission rule, rootFolderName, childFolderNames array constraints). The description only restates the root and child folder concepts without adding deeper parameter semantics, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 creates an AFFiNE organize folder blueprint with one root folder and optional child folders, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from create_folder by explicitly labeling it as a convenience wrapper, making its purpose distinct among sibling tools.

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?

It names create_folder as the underlying alternative and positions this tool as a convenience wrapper, implying use for simple folder hierarchy setups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with other folder-related tools, leaving some room for interpretation.

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