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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one concrete behavioral trait: the operation is refused with error code `space_limit_reached` when the plan is full. It remains silent on permissions/authentication, reversibility, and whether the new space id is returned, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, purpose first, failure condition second, with no filler. Every clause adds information the schema does not already contain.

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 simple one-required-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose plus the key failure mode. It could still note auth requirements or what is returned on success, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% — both `name` and `slug` are documented in the schema, including that slug is derived from name when omitted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Crée un espace client'), which distinguishes it from create_link and list_spaces by resource type. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource is unambiguous enough for selection.

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?

Implies usage (create a client space) but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as list_spaces for inspecting existing spaces. The only conditional information is a failure case, not usage routing.

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