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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses several consequential traits: it is state-changing, consumes AI credits, creates a private linked Space, requires prior authorization, and queues work asynchronously from stored preview data rather than from live input.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the trigger condition, the second enumerates cost, side effects, and the identifying parameters. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, authorization, cost, side effects, and the identity of the queued job. It leaves open what happens after queueing (e.g., how completion is observed, or behavior on a stale hash), which the schema's hash-mismatch note only partially addresses.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by tying repository_id and accepted_tree_hash to the stored preview and the 'exact approved preview' condition. It does not add format-level detail beyond the schema for the optional parameters (space_name, excluded_paths).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('create its documentation Space' from a stored full-tree preview) and pins the triggering precondition (user reviewed a full-tree preview). It clearly separates this from the sibling preview tool and from one-shot generators like generate-repository-documentation, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 triggering condition ('Use this when the user has reviewed a full-tree preview and asks to create its documentation Space') and an 'After authorization' gate. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for cases where no preview exists, so it falls short of a 5.

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