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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that the call is state-changing, that creation happens after MCP client authorization, and that is_public=true exposes the Space publicly. It omits error behavior such as duplicate-name or duplicate-slug handling, which matters for a create operation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by behavioral notes. Minor redundancy in 'State-changing: creates the Space directly', but no filler or repetition that obscures the key facts.

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 4-parameter create tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the trigger, required input, optional inputs, authorization flow, and the visibility side effect. It lacks any indication of what is returned or how creation failures are surfaced, which would round it out.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them ('Requires a Space name and may include description, public visibility, and slug'). The only added nuance is the consequence of is_public=true, which is close to a restatement of the field's own meaning.

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 a new documentation Space or knowledge base container'), which is the container-level create that distinguishes it from siblings like create-space-document and create-space-item. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to create a new documentation Space' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g. when the user instead wants to add an item to an existing Space), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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