create_community_space

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description enriches them substantially: it explains that repeated calls duplicate the effect, describes server-side auth injection (admin token + Lw-Client id, never by the model), discloses the 30-per-10s throttle with retry on 429/5xx, and details the response/error surface (HTTP status + body, plus specific meaning of 401/403/404/422). This is exactly the contextual depth a write tool needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: operation line, behavior, parameters, returns, and usage guidance are cleanly sectioned and front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema content; each segment addresses a distinct concern an agent would have when invoking a mutating tool.

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 nested-body write tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential angles: precondition verification via read tools, parameter passing mechanics, return format, error semantics, idempotency warning, and rate-limit behavior. The conditional collectionId rule is already documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is 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 coverage is 100% and the nested body properties are individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by flagging a trap: 'the spec leaves body optional, but this endpoint expects one' and clarifying the payload is forwarded verbatim. This resolves an ambiguity that could otherwise cause a failed call, so it earns a 4 rather than baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a community space') plus the exact endpoint and method (POST /v2/community/spaces). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, and the 'Related Community tools' line explicitly situates it among siblings (add_invite_users_community_space, delete_community_space, get_community_space, etc.), so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 'Use when' section is explicit: 'only when the user asked to create this,' and it instructs the agent to check with a 🟢 read tool that the target exists and the record is not already present. This prevents duplicate-resource mistakes and goes beyond mere context to give actionable routing guidance.

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