createWorkspace

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: error responses (403), rate limits, uniqueness constraints, and the teamId requirement. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about when the operation fails or has restrictions.

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 well-structured with a main sentence followed by bullet points for notes. It is concise enough while covering necessary detail. The use of links is helpful but could be integrated more tightly.

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?

Given the complexity (workspace creation with constraints) and lack of output schema, the description covers key aspects: permissions, plan limits, rate limits, uniqueness, and teamId. It does not describe the response format, which is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all properties. The description adds minor context (e.g., teamId requirement when organizations enabled, type restrictions) but largely overlaps with schema. At high schema coverage, additional value is limited.

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 'Creates a new workspace' with a link to documentation. The verb 'creates' and resource 'workspace' are explicit. The name itself differentiates from siblings like updateWorkspace and getWorkspace.

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 usage guidance via notes on permissions (403 Forbidden), plan requirements for private/partner workspaces, rate limits for public workspaces, uniqueness constraints, and the teamId requirement for organizations. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the conditions are clearly stated.

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