create_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a mutation tool, it should mention whether creation requires specific permissions, whether features like multiple_assignees or the features object have defaults when omitted, and what the success response looks like. None of this is disclosed, leaving the agent to guess about required permissions and default behaviors.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters including a complex nested features object, so it's concise but lean.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should explain default behaviors (e.g., what happens if features/multiple_assignees are omitted), permission requirements, and the shape of the created resource. None of this is provided, and the description only states the most obvious part of the operation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 50%, meaning two parameters (name, team_id) are described in the schema but the features object and multiple_assignees lack descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but the features structure is self-documenting via its nested boolean 'enabled' fields. The baseline of 3 applies with 50% coverage; the nested feature keys are intuitive enough to not need much explanation, warranting a slight bump.

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 'Create a new space in a workspace' uses a specific verb (create) + resource (space) + location (workspace), which clearly states the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like update_space and delete_space, though it doesn't differentiate from create_folder, create_list, or other 'create' tools beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workspace), when spaces are needed vs folders/lists, or any exclusionary guidance. The context of 'space' as a container entity is implied but never explained.

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