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

The description discloses key side effects: it is state-changing, consumes AI credits, creates a private linked Space, and queues documentation. It also notes authorization is required. These go beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, giving the agent a clear picture of consequences.

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 concise and well-structured, conveying the trigger, action, and key parameters in two sentences. No redundant words or vague filler. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with necessary context.

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 moderate complexity (four parameters, side effects, and a preview dependency), the description is largely complete. It mentions authorization, side effects, and the preview hash matching requirement. It does not describe the output or post-queue behavior, but no output schema exists and this information is not critical for invocation.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all parameters clearly. The main description adds context by explaining that repository_id and accepted_tree_hash come from the stored preview, reinforcing their roles. It also clarifies that excluded_paths is metadata only, which is helpful. Slight room to tie parameters more explicitly to the workflow, but overall strong.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to create a documentation Space after a preview is reviewed. It names the specific resource (Space) and the action (create/queue docs), and clearly ties to the preview workflow. This distinguishes it from other generation tools that don't create Spaces.

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?

It gives a clear condition: 'Use this when the user has reviewed a full-tree preview and asks to create its documentation Space.' This implies the correct timing and context. It stops short of explicitly mentioning alternatives, but the precondition is specific enough to guide selection among similar tools.

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