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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it states this removes a public Space and its public content, and that removal happens after MCP client authorization. It does not describe irreversibility or recovery options, which would push it higher.

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 usage condition, followed by the destructive scope and prerequisite. No filler, though the closing 'not for deleting individual pages' partially restates the 'whole Space' framing.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers trigger, exclusion, prerequisite source, and destruction scope, which is sufficient given annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema is needed. Missing only recovery/undo context.

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 coverage is 100% and the single space_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Numeric Space ID to delete. Use list-spaces first...'). The description's 'Requires numeric space_id from list-spaces' largely repeats the schema, so it adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. 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+resource ('delete a whole documentation Space') and disambiguates from siblings in the same family (delete-space-document, delete-space-items) by explicitly excluding individual pages. An agent can pick this tool without opening any 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 explicitly wants to delete a whole documentation Space') and an exclusion ('should not be used for deleting individual pages'), plus the prerequisite of obtaining space_id from list-spaces. It lacks naming the exact alternative tool, so routing is implied rather than direct.

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