workspace_create

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 discloses meaningful behavioral traits — the workspace is 'isolated' and creation is 'safe', implying the branch won't affect the main tree — but says nothing about idempotency (what happens if one exists), side effects on the repo, permissions, or failure modes for a creation 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?

A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could carry one more clause of routing/behavioral detail at no real cost.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits error behavior, what is returned, and how it relates to the many sibling tools. The agent knows what it does but not the full contract for invoking it safely.

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% and both parameters (workerId, taskId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or relationship detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates an isolated workspace and branch') and adds scope ('for a worker to implement a specific task'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling workspace_status, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with adjacent tools like git_branch or workspace_status.

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 phrase 'for a worker to implement a specific task safely' implies the usage context (call before implementing a task), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as git_branch or workspace_status. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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