create_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the constraint 'max 2 workspaces per user', which is a useful behavioral trait (a limit that could cause errors if exceeded). However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like what happens on success (e.g., returns workspace ID), error conditions beyond the limit, or permissions required, leaving gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new workspace') and adds only essential constraint information. There is no wasted text, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key constraint but lacks details on return values, error handling, or permissions. For a creation tool, more context would be helpful, but it meets a minimum viable level given the single parameter and clear constraint.

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 the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as naming conventions or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from other workspace-related tools like 'get_workspace', 'update_workspace', or 'delete_workspace' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_group' or 'create_note', which are similar creation operations for different resources.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool by stating the constraint 'max 2 workspaces per user', which implicitly suggests checking 'can_create_workspace' or 'list_workspaces' first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the constraint offers practical guidance for usage.

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