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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover idempotent/non-destructive/not-read-only): it discloses a hard precondition (a free preview cannot be public until hosting starts) and a non-obvious side effect of the return payload (a Stripe Checkout link the person must pay). This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the state change and then the two constraints that matter (consent, payment gate). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description helpfully explains the notable return value (Checkout link). It is nearly complete for a two-parameter mutation; it stops short of saying what happens if the space is not in a 'ready' state or whether the change is reversible.

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 50%: space_id is documented in the schema, but the required boolean 'public' has no schema description. The description compensates by spelling out the semantic meaning of both values ('anyone with the link' vs 'only the owner'), though it does not cover format/validation for space_id beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('makes a ready space public or private') and immediately defines what each state means to the outside world ('anyone with the link' vs 'only the owner'), which the boolean schema field does not convey. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like create_space or space_status without opening either 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?

'Ask the person first' gives an explicit consent precondition before invoking, and 'a ready space' implies a state prerequisite. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but the sibling list contains no competing visibility tool, so the missing exclusion is low-cost.

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