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 goes further by disclosing what is actually destroyed — a manageable Space plus, notably, a public Space and its public content — and that removal happens after MCP-client authorization. It stops short of stating irreversibility or whether dependent items (documents, links) are cascaded, which is the remaining gap.

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 front-loaded sentences: the trigger condition leads, followed by the destructive scope and then the prerequisite. Content earns its place, though 'directly after the MCP client authorizes the call' is slightly verbose for the value it adds.

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 with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the trigger, the scope (whole Space, including public content), the exclusion, and the ID source. Adequate; only the cascade/irreversibility behavior of dependent items is left unstated.

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 schema already documents space_id as a numeric ID to be sourced via list-spaces with user confirmation. The description restates the source ('from list-spaces') but adds no format, range, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 explicitly distinguishes the scope from sibling tools by noting it 'should not be used for deleting individual pages' — routing the agent away from delete-space-document/delete-space-items. An agent can separate it from the other delete-* siblings 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 when-to-use condition ('when the user explicitly wants to delete a whole documentation Space'), an explicit when-not ('not for deleting individual pages'), and a prerequisite ('Requires numeric space_id from list-spaces'). Alternatives and the selecting condition are both named.

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