create_planning_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares this is a mutating operation, explains it initializes an empty Virtual AST in server graph state, notes immediate disk persistence and session lifetime, and discloses idempotency behavior when plan_id already exists. That is exactly the safety and side-effect context an agent needs before invoking a write tool.

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?

Purpose, ordering, exclusion, side effects, idempotency, and return value are front-loaded in five tight sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers invocation conditions, side effects, idempotency, and the return value ('workspace ID on success'). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real semantic value by explaining that plan_id collision yields idempotent reuse of the existing workspace, and that the workspace is associated with the provided plan_id. The description parameter's purpose is left to the schema, hence not a 5.

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 and resource ('Create a new virtual planning workspace'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools add_planned_symbol and validate_plan by naming them as follow-on steps. An agent can identify this as the initialization step without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('first when starting any multi-file feature or refactoring task, before calling add_planned_symbol or validate_plan') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use this tool if a plan already exists for your current task'). The ordering relative to siblings is fully spelled out.

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