create_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two side effects—creating a workspace and starting a session—but omits important traits like what 'sandboxed' entails, whether the operation is reversible, any prerequisites, or what happens to existing data or sessions. No warnings or caveats are provided.

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 concise sentences with a first sentence that clearly states the action and a second sentence that gives essential parameter guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is under-specified. It does not mention what the response contains, how to monitor the created session, or any limitations. It touches on the key choice of projectId vs repositoryUrl but leaves the agent without a full operational picture.

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 63%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the either/or between projectId and repositoryUrl, which is helpful beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the other parameters (name, model, effort, sessionName) beyond what the schema provides, leaving some gaps.

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 uses a specific verb-phrase 'Create a new Conductor workspace' and clearly states the resource, adding 'a sandboxed coding-agent environment' for context. It distinguishes itself from the read/query siblings (list_projects, get_workspace_status) by the core action of 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 gives a clear directive on when to use it—'to create a new workspace'—and provides a critical usage condition: 'Provide either projectId or repositoryUrl.' It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context makes the tool's unique role obvious.

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