create_workgroup

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 lacks disclosure about return values, permissions, idempotency, or side effects. It only documents parameters, not behavioral traits of the operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a lead sentence stating the purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every line is informative and there is no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 create tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and the core action. However, it fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., created workgroup ID) or any error conditions, leaving behavioral expectations incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage; the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name, type with allowed values ('DEPARTMENT', 'LOCATION', or 'SQUAD'), parent_id as optional UUID, and key as optional unique key. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new workgroup (DEPARTMENT, LOCATION, etc.)'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_workgroups and delete_workgroup by explicitly using 'Create' and enumerating workgroup types.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool creates workgroups and lists the valid types. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type is distinctive and the intended usage is obvious from the name and description.

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