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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: creation happens after MCP client authorization, and setting is_public=true makes the Space publicly accessible, which is a non-obvious side effect worth surfacing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by the behavioral notes. Efficient and scannable, with the key state-changing warning placed prominently; only slight redundancy in re-listing the parameters.

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 output schema, the description covers the trigger, the authorization gate, the required name, and the public-visibility consequence. It omits what the response returns (e.g., new Space identifier), but that is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 in the schema. The description restates the same fields (name required, description/visibility/slug optional) without adding syntax, constraints, or format guidance beyond the structured data, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (create) and resource (documentation Space / knowledge base container), and clarifies it produces the container itself rather than a document or item, which separates it from create-space-document and create-space-item. Clear, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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, which is the correct framing for a create tool. It provides no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., update-space for existing Spaces), so it stops short of the top tier.

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