gtm_create_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important traits: deleting a workspace discards everything in it, and concurrent workspaces are limited to 3 on the free tier. It does not cover all behavior, such as what the confirm parameter does or idempotency, but it gives meaningful operational context beyond the schema.

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 tightly structured: purpose, when to use, why it is preferable, and a quota/lifecycle warning. Every sentence earns its place and the most important point is front-loaded in the first line.

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?

The description covers the conceptual and lifecycle aspects of workspace creation well, and an output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. However, with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent uncertain about how to specify account_id, container_id, and confirm, which are material to correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for parameter meaning, but it names no parameters at all. 'name' is self-evident, while confirm, account_id, container_id, and description receive no explanation beyond their schema titles and defaults. The description explains the workspace concept but not how to fill in the arguments.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a workspace to hold a batch of changes.' It clearly distinguishes the workspace as a batch container from direct edits in the Default Workspace, and this is enough to separate it from sibling tools like gtm_create_entity or gtm_create_version.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Do this before any set of edits you might want to abandon.' It also explains why it beats the alternative of unpicking Default Workspace edits, and closes with a clear lifecycle rule: delete workspaces once merged. This is direct, actionable usage guidance.

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