Create Workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a workspace in a container' and gives no information about side effects, duplicate-handling, permissions, idempotency, or whether creation is reversible. Nothing contradicts annotations because there are none.

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 six-word sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is arguably too terse to carry the behavioral and usage information an agent needs.

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?

The input schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description alone leaves gaps around when to create a workspace, what constraints apply, and what creating one implies for subsequent operations.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with useful context, including an example for the nested 'workspace' object. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond 'in a container,' which loosely aligns with container_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('workspace'), and a location/scope ('in a container'). It is not a bare tautology because it adds the container context, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like create_container or create_version. However, it does not explain what a workspace is or explicitly differentiate it from workspace-related siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workspaces, update_workspace, or publish_version. The description also omits prerequisites, such as whether the account and container must already exist or whether a workspace is typically created before adding tags and variables.

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