create_workspace

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the object created is *inactive* legacy metadata and does not provision pages, which materially changes what the agent should expect after the write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the exclusions. The trailing '[Write]' marker is redundant with readOnlyHint=false but costs almost nothing; no filler otherwise.

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 3-parameter creation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description tells the agent what gets created, in what state, and what is not created. Gaps are minor: no info on return value identity (workspace id/url) or uniqueness constraints on workspace_url.

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 67% with name and workspace_url documented; the `description` parameter has no description in either place. The description itself says nothing about parameters, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create inactive legacy Agent Workspace metadata') and immediately bounds the scope by naming what it does NOT do (no Configurable Workspace, no pages). This cleanly separates it from siblings like configure_workspace_list and create_ux_experience.

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?

'Configure lists separately' implicitly routes the agent to configure_workspace_list, and the 'does not provision a Configurable Workspace or its pages' sentence excludes a likely misuse. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or stating prerequisites (e.g. existing URL segment must be unique).

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