createEnvironment

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, establishing this as a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the 30MB size limit and HTTP 411 error handling, which aren't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate environment names.

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 efficiently structured with the core purpose stated upfront followed by three bullet points of important notes. Each bullet point adds practical value, though the second bullet about HTTP 411 errors is quite technical and might be better placed elsewhere.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description provides reasonable context about workspace fallback behavior and technical constraints. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what the response contains, or how to handle errors beyond the specific 411 case. The annotations cover basic safety but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 both parameters ('workspace' and 'environment') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 the tool 'Creates an environment', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createWorkspace' or 'putEnvironment', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific creation tool versus alternatives.

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 workspace behavior: 'If you do not include the `workspace` query parameter, the system creates the environment in the oldest personal Internal workspace you own.' This gives practical guidance on parameter usage, though it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createWorkspace' or 'putEnvironment'.

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