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

The description states that the tool is 'State-changing' and that it 'updates the Space item directly after the MCP client authorizes the call'. This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by clarifying the authorization requirement, though it could further detail potential side effects.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose, usage, and required parameters. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not need to address return values. It provides sufficient context for invoking the tool, including prerequisites (space_id and item_id from list-space-documents) and the authorization note. It could mention what happens with null parameters, but the schema already clarifies that, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the nullable properties. The description mentions content, external URL, and parent folder changes, but these are already described in the schema, so no additional meaning is added. Thus, 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 verb 'rename or edit' and the resource 'Space page/document, folder, or external link', making the tool's purpose distinct. It also enumerates specific editable attributes (markdown content, external URL, parent folder), which removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly begins with 'Use this when...' and specifies the required identifiers (space_id and item_id) and their source (list-space-documents). This gives clear, actionable guidance on when and how to invoke the tool, satisfying the explicit usage criterion.

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