createWorkspace

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive operation, the description details permission requirements (403 Forbidden response), rate limits for public workspaces, uniqueness constraints for public team workspaces, and important deprecation warnings about linked collections/environments. This provides valuable operational guidance that annotations alone don't cover.

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 appropriately structured with clear sections (Note, Important) but is somewhat verbose. The deprecation warning about linked collections/environments is detailed but may be more extensive than necessary for basic tool understanding. While well-organized, it could be more streamlined.

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 comprehensive context about permissions, constraints, and behavioral considerations. It covers the key operational aspects an agent needs to use this tool effectively, though some details about response format or error handling could further enhance completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the workspace object parameters (name, type, description, about). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional 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 clearly states the specific action ('Creates a new workspace') and identifies the resource ('workspace'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'updateWorkspace' (which modifies existing workspaces) and 'getWorkspace'/'getWorkspaces' (which retrieve workspaces). The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 (to create workspaces) and includes important notes about permissions, rate limits, and deprecated functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'updateWorkspace' for modifications), which prevents a perfect score.

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