workspace_create

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

The description only states that the tool creates a workspace, which is already implied by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds no additional behavioral context such as whether creation requires an existing capacity, whether it is synchronous, what side effects occur, or what the response contains.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 create operation with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. The main gap is that it does not mention the return value or whether creation is synchronous, but this is minor for a straightforward create 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?

All three parameters (displayName, capacityId, description) are fully described in the input schema, so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new Fabric workspace' uses a specific verb and resource, making the operation immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling workspace tools like workspace_get, workspace_update, and workspace_delete because it is the create operation. The resource type is explicit, so there is no ambiguity among the many create_* tools.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: use this when a new Fabric workspace needs to be created. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives such as workspace_update for modifying an existing workspace.

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