Create Version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive side effect ('the API deletes it'), the post-condition ('makes the new version the container's latest'), and the non-publishing behavior. This is exactly the kind of critical behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a workspace-consuming call.

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 two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the two most important caveats (deletion and non-publishing) placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool, the description covers the destructive effect, the resulting state, and the publish workflow. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. A small gap is that it does not mention any prerequisites or failure behaviors, but the combination of the explicit destructive warning and the sibling routing makes this adequately complete.

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 each parameter (account_id, container_id, workspace_id, version_options) having a description. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles that, so the baseline of 3 applies. The only slight extra is that the workspace deletion behavior gives additional meaning to workspace_id, but this is not a parameter explanation.

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 a specific verb and resource pair: 'Turn a workspace into a container version.' It then clarifies the transformation by stating the workspace is deleted and the new version becomes the container's latest. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from publish_version, so an agent can tell it apart from closely related version tools without opening schemas.

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 gives clear when-to-use context by explaining the workspace is consumed and the version becomes latest. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use and an alternative: 'Creating a version does not publish it; use publish_version for that.' This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling when publishing is needed.

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