clickup_space_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'Create'), mentions the default feature set and statuses, indicates customization limitations, and specifies the return format ('Returns the created space object including its new id'). It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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 perfectly structured with three focused sentences: purpose statement, behavioral context about defaults and customization, and return value information. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, behavioral context about defaults and customization, and return format specification. It doesn't address authentication requirements, error cases, or workspace permissions, but given the 3 simple parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's reasonably complete for agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new top-level space'), identifies the resource ('in a ClickUp workspace'), and distinguishes it from siblings like clickup_space_list (which lists spaces) and clickup_space_update (which modifies existing spaces). It provides exact scope information that differentiates it from other creation 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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Create a new top-level space') and mentions customization options 'via the web UI or by creating folders/lists under it.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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