New Workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It does this well by explicitly disclosing idempotency: calling twice with the same slug updates title/description but never deletes files already present in the folder. It does not claim the second call creates a duplicate or destructive state, which is the most important behavioral trait here.

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 short and front-loaded: it gives the immediate action first, then explains the purpose of the workspace convention, then states the key safety behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 three-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides adequate context: exact resource, purpose, folder location, and behavioral guarantee. It could be slightly more explicit about how this tool relates to siblings like init_project or set_project_dir, but that is a minor gap, not a usability blocker.

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 coverage is already complete (100%), but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema. It clarifies that `slug` is the stable workspace key, and that reusing the same slug causes an update of title/description rather than failure or recreation. This is useful behavior for an agent deciding how to call the tool on an existing workspace.

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 opens with a precise action and resource: 'Create a workspace subdirectory under workspace/<slug>/.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and the path it operates on. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb and path make the purpose far more specific than the generic title 'New Workspace.'

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 clearly communicates the intended use context: workspace directories are FCoP's convention for actual work artifacts, and using them avoids colliding with unrelated project files. It implies when the tool should be used, though it does not explicitly mention when _not_ to use it or name an alternative sibling tool.

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