register_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does state a key trait: idempotent upsert semantics, meaning repeated calls are safe and may refresh an existing record. It does not disclose permissions, how missing optional fields are treated, or whether any existing data is cleared.

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?

One concise sentence with the core action and idempotency parenthetical up front. No filler or repetition; every word contributes.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this is under-specified. The output schema covers return expectations, but the description still leaves parameter semantics, side effects, and when-to-choose-this gap.

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 the description should compensate by explaining what parameters like metadata, repo_root, and default_branch do. It provides no parameter-level information at all, leaving agents to guess from names alone.

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 names a specific operation ('Create or refresh'), a target resource ('workspace record'), and a behavioral promise ('idempotent upsert'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_workspaces and archive_workspace.

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 'create or refresh' phrasing implies the intended use case: registering or updating a workspace. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention preconditions such as requiring workspace_id.

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