chat_create_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the creation action (a mutation) but omits critical details: required permissions, side effects (e.g., notifications), limits (e.g., uniqueness of displayName), or what happens on duplicate creation.

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 unnecessary words. It perfectly front-loads the action and key features.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential operation. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., the created space ID) and does not address potential errors or prerequisites.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema—only contextualizing memberEmails as 'initial members'. The email and displayName parameters are already well-described in the schema.

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 verb ('create'), the resource ('new named Google Chat space'), and optional action ('inviting initial members'). It distinguishes well from siblings like chat_add_member (adds to existing space) and chat_list_spaces (lists existing spaces).

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 implies usage (e.g., for creating a space optionally with members) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chat_add_member for adding members later, nor any prerequisites or limitations.

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