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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: caller becomes owner, duplicate slug returns 409, individual spaces require any write-capable role while team spaces require Admin/SuperAdmin or a create_team_space grant, subspaces require manage rights on the parent and inherit its space_type and role propagation, and a subspace cannot be reparented later.

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 organized as a per-parameter breakdown with bold emphasis on critical constraints. It is long, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations almost every line earns its place; a slightly tighter grouping could still improve scannability.

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 six-parameter, zero-schema-coverage, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers preconditions, validation failures, inheritance rules, and role side effects. The absence of an output schema is immaterial since creation semantics and the 409 error path are already described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents nearly every parameter: slug format and global uniqueness with 409 on conflict, visibility's two values and per-space semantics, description's purpose, space_type's two values plus their permission implications, and parent_slug's subspace behavior. Only 'name' is left undocumented, which is self-evident.

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 workspace/space, or a subspace inside one') and immediately distinguishes the create-space operation from sibling create tools like create_role, create_token, and create_permission. The scope (top-level space vs. nested subspace) is clear from the first sentence.

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?

Gives clear conditions that select behavior: use parent_slug when you want a subspace, pick space_type='team' vs 'individual' based on permission context. It does not explicitly point to sibling tools for adjacent operations (e.g., add_space_member, set_space_visibility), but the in-tool branch guidance is strong.

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