Create a workspace

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

Annotations already establish non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description clears it by disclosing concrete failure behavior (403), rate-limit constraints on publishing, public workspace name uniqueness, and the conditional teamId requirement. These operational details add genuine context beyond the annotation hints, though no response-format or rollback info is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose followed by five tightly-scoped bullets, each carrying operational weight—permissions, plan restrictions, rate limits, naming, and conditional requirements. Every sentence earns its place, though it's slightly long for the simplest read of the 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 single-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers the key edge cases: permission failures, plan limits, uniqueness, and a conditional required field. It's thorough given the tool's simplicity, leaving no major operational gap, though it doesn't describe the returned workspace object.

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 nested workspace object fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's teamId note is duplicative of the schema's own teamId property description, and it adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema captures.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pairing 'Creates a new workspace,' which unambiguously states the operation and target. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getWorkspaces, getWorkspace, and updateWorkspace in the broader CRUD family.

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 rich operational context—403 Forbidden behavior when permissions are lacking, rate limits on public workspaces, and name-uniqueness constraints—which implies when the call will fail. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to select this tool over alternatives (e.g., updateWorkspace for modifications), so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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