setup_space

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the annotation already signals a non-read-only operation. The description adds that the tool 'ensure[s]' the space exists and notes the wallet prerequisite, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur when a space is missing, or what happens if the wallet is not configured. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 one short sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Ensure personal space exists and get space ID'), and the prerequisite is appended cleanly. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key prerequisite. It does not specify the exact return format or error behavior, but the tool's simplicity means these gaps are less critical.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed by focusing on the action and the wallet prerequisite. Baseline for zero parameters is appropriately high.

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 action: 'Ensure personal space exists and get space ID.' It clearly identifies the resource (personal space) and the intended outcome (space ID). It distinguishes itself from get_space/list_spaces by emphasizing the 'ensure exists' behavior, though it does not explicitly say 'create if missing'.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires configured wallet.' This gives the agent a necessary condition before invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_space/list_spaces or mention any exclusion cases, leaving some inference to the agent.

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