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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is state-changing, creates the document directly after authorization, and that content in a public Space becomes publicly accessible. It does not address duplicate-on-retry behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but the added value is real.

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?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place, with the trigger condition front-loaded before the requirements and the sibling disambiguation. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Covers trigger, alternatives, required inputs, mutation semantics, and the public-visibility implication for a five-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what comes back (e.g., the created document's ID), which an agent may need for follow-up calls.

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 five parameters including path folder-creation and parent_id are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the three required fields and adds no format, syntax, or interaction detail beyond that, 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 and resource: create a markdown document/page in a Space from provided content. It explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, create-space-item, noting that one handles folders and external links, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to create a markdown document/page in a Space') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('Use create-space-item for folders or external links'). Prerequisites (space_id, title, content) are also stated.

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