ed_create_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as the meaning of workspace_type, but does not describe side effects, prerequisites, or post-creation behavior. This meets the baseline with annotations present.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and then clarifies the key parameter. No extraneous words; the list of workspace_type values is necessary detail rather than fluff.

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 simple create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter options. It does not mention potential delay or prerequisites, but the schema provides course_id acquisition guidance. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is low (33%), but the description compensates by explaining workspace_type as '环境镜像' and listing all valid values (general/c/cpp/python/java/nodejs/jupyter/rstudio). course_id is already described in the schema; title's purpose is self-evident. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 action ('新建 workspace') and resource ('Ed 课程里的云 IDE'), using a specific verb and context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ed_update_workspace and ed_delete_workspace by focusing on creation.

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 for when to use this tool (creating a new workspace in an Ed course) and clarifies the workspace_type parameter's valid choices. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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