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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the resulting space is empty — but says nothing about name uniqueness, permission requirements, or whether creation can fail on duplicates.

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 sentences, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-required-param creation tool the description is nearly sufficient; only the undocumented 'name'/'description' semantics and any uniqueness constraint are 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 only 33% (only 'icon' is documented), and the description mentions no parameters at all. With low coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented 'name' and 'description' fields but provides zero guidance.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new, empty space') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling 'steps.apply'. An agent can distinguish it from space.update/space.delete and steps.apply 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?

'Use `steps.apply` instead when the space should come with sheets, pages or automations' gives an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered in a single sentence.

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