Create workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine, non-redundant context by spelling out the practical consequence of non-idempotency: each call creates another workspace and retries do not reuse the first one. It does not mention the destructiveHint=true warning (that these operations can have broad effects) or any auth or rate-limit constraints.

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?

Three short sentences, each one carrying a distinct payload: the action, the pre-check, and the retry hazard. The most important operational warning (retries create duplicates) is placed last as a deliberate caution.

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?

With no output schema, the description should tell the agent what it gets back — e.g. a workspace identifier that later tools like workspace_pause or workspace_delete require. That is missing, as is any explanation of the 'name' parameter, leaving an agent unable to reason about the result of the call.

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% and the description never mentions the single parameter 'name' at all — no constraints (1-80 chars), no uniqueness expectation, no format guidance. For a tool whose only input is the workspace name, leaving it entirely unaddressed is a clear gap the schema cannot fill on its own.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new workspace') and names the sibling it should be paired with (workspace_list). It's clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the ~80 sibling tools, though it adds nothing about what a workspace actually is in this system.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks for one') and an explicit prerequisite ('Check workspace_list first'), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of covering alternatives such as whether to reuse, rename, or resume an existing workspace instead of creating one.

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