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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds valuable context: it explicitly calls out 'State-changing: creates a generation-backed Space item' and notes that authorization is required. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the operation's nature and prerequisite.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance and state-changing behavior. No redundant content; every sentence adds value.

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 description covers when to use, state-changing nature, authorization, and required parameters. It does not mention the return value or error conditions, but for a mutation tool without an output schema, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation. The omission is minor given the simplicity of the operation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating required/optional parameters and using 'destination' for space_id, which is a slight clarification. This meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: saving, publishing, or adding an existing generated output to a documentation Space. It distinguishes from generation tools by emphasizing 'existing generated output/result', making it distinct from siblings like 'generate-and-add-documentation'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user wants to save, publish, or add an existing generated output') and implies the prerequisite that the generation must already exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over generation-focused tools.

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