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

The description openly discloses that this is a state-changing action, consumes AI credits, creates a generation, and writes a document to the specified space_id. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects before invocation.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loads the primary use case, and includes key side effects without unnecessary wording. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: when to use it, what it produces, and what side effects it has. It does not describe the return value or explicitly contrast sibling tools, but the schema covers parameters and the core behavior is sufficiently contextualized.

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 every parameter already has a detailed description, including the instruction to call list-spaces first for space_id. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the weight, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: use it when source files are supplied and generated documentation should be saved directly into an existing Space. It names the action, target resource, and outcome, and it is implicitly distinct from plain generation tools by emphasizing the direct write to a space.

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?

The description gives an explicit 'use this when' condition: when the user supplies source files and wants documentation saved directly in an existing Space. It does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool, such as add-generation-to-space, but the primary usage scenario is clear enough.

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