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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not naturally idempotent), so the description's job is supplementary and it delivers: it names the required API scope and the return type LiteSpaceResponse. It stops short of describing side effects like behavior on duplicate names or what a newly created space contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by optional-field context and return/scope facts. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, what is optional, what it returns, and the required auth scope. It leaves gaps around duplicate-name behavior and space nesting/hierarchy, which is why it is not a 5.

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 63% — account, workspace, idempotencyKey, icon, and color are richly documented in-schema, while name, isPrivate, and description are bare. The description only adds that description/icon/color/isPrivate are 'optional metadata', which is largely inferable from the required list, so it does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented fields.

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+resource ('Create a new space') scoped to the current workspace, which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent creation tools such as pm_create_folder, pm_create_list, or wiki_create_space, so an agent still has to reason about which 'space' concept 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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you want a new space. It adds a prerequisite ('API-key scope: spaces:write') which is useful eligibility context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling creation tools.

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