workshop_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether names must be unique, what happens on duplicate names, or any side effects. Only the minimal 'creates' semantics is conveyed.

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 no waste. It is front-loaded, though it errs toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits uniqueness constraints, required vs optional params, and any indication of the returned workshop identifier needed for follow-up tools like machine_assign_workshop.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names 'name' and 'description' — it doesn't state whether 'name' must be unique, whether 'description' is optional, or any format constraints.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a workshop to group machines' states the action and the entity, plus the grouping purpose. It distinguishes itself from workshop_list/update/delete siblings by being the creation primitive, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives like machine_assign_workshop for adding machines afterward. Usage must be inferred from the name and sibling list.

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