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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the action requires authorization, is state-changing, consumes AI credits, creates a private Space, links the repository, and queues per-file jobs. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the meaningful behavioral burden and does so richly.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the side effects and required inputs packed into the second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 credit-consuming, state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, side effects, and required inputs adequately. It stops short of describing the return payload (e.g., a generation/Space identifier for follow-up calls), which would be the remaining useful detail.

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% and the property descriptions already explain repository_id, selected_files, language, space_name, and additional_instructions in detail. The description only restates that repository_id and selected_files are used, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and outcome: build a new documentation Space from selected files in an imported repository. The 'selected files' and 'new Space' framing implicitly distinguishes it from full-tree or add-to-existing generators, but among the many sibling generate-* tools (generate-code-documentation, generate-and-add-documentation, generate-repository-documentation) no sibling is named, so an agent still has to infer which generator applies.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants a new documentation Space built from selected files in an imported repository.' The 'new Space' vs. add-to-existing and 'selected files' vs. whole-repo scoping implicitly routes against alternatives, but no when-not condition or named sibling alternative is given.

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