noetic.create_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavior. It discloses 'fails closed at the space cap' and 'owner-governed,' which is useful for denied expectations, but it does not mention side effects on existing spaces, need for authentication beyond ownership, whether the operation is reversible, or how failures are surfaced. A creation tool with no mutations context is underspecified.

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 sentence with no redundant fluff; the qualifiers about owner control and failing closed add content. It is concise and front-loaded, though so concise that it omits critical information. Length is appropriate for what is included, but not for the tool's overall needs.

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 tool that creates a core resource and has 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence cannot be complete. The agent will not know how to fill parameters, what values are valid, what the result contains, or which side effects to expect. The description provides only a narrow hint.

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 0% and the description ignores all six parameters. It adds no meaning to sessionId, visibility, displayName, defaultRights, persistenceMode, or protectionLevel. Since the description does not compensate for the empty schema, the agent has no clue what the parameters mean or how they affect the created space.

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 names a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('geometric space (partition) in the account dump') and adds governance context. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like noetic.query or noetic.observe, though terms is vague without additional details about what makes a space 'geometric' and how it differs from other persistence tools.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., owner role, existing session, cap limits). The phrase owner-governed hints at permissions, but no 'use X instead' or 'call after Y' appears. Agents must infer under which conditions creation succeeds or which sibling is better suited.

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