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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: key uniqueness and format constraints, the semantics and defaults of isPublic/isEditPublic, the required permission level, and the scope string. The non-idempotent implication (unique key) and the internal-vs-public distinction are exactly what an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then key constraints, then the visibility caveat that prevents the most likely misuse. Dense but every sentence carries a fact the schema does not: URL identifier role, permission requirement, scope.

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 9-param creation tool with no output schema, it covers naming rules, defaults, permissions and scope. It never says what comes back (space id) or what happens on a duplicate key, which would be the last piece needed for confident follow-up calls.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds value by explaining that `key` is the identifier used in URLs and later calls (with examples) and that `name` is the display name, plus explicit defaults for the two booleans. It leaves `icon`, `iconColor`, `workspace`, `account`, `description` to the schema.

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 resource ("Create a new wiki space") with scope ("in the current workspace"), and explicitly distinguishes the visibility effect from the sibling wiki_set_public_settings. An agent can pick this over wiki_update_space / wiki_delete_space without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative for public publishing (wiki_set_public_settings) and states the prerequisite (workspace-level edit access) plus the API-key scope. It does not spell out when to use a new space versus a page/folder under an existing space, so a small routing gap remains.

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