create_client_space

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses idempotency (existing space by name/slug in any casing returns instead of duplicating), the permanence of the returned slug, and that later renames affect display name only. It also conveys the safe create-once side-effect model.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; the main action and rare-use caveat are front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds either behavioral or usage information that earns its place.

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 single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to guide invocation: it explains return significance (permanent slug), duplicate behavior, and the auto-create alternative. An agent has what it needs to call correctly without further clarification.

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 schema already describes the display name and case-insensitive identity, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that matching can occur by slug as well as name, any casing, and that the same casing/slug rules as publish_html apply, which goes beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a client space') and distinguishes it from publish_html, which auto-creates the space with a client argument. It also clarifies that the tool is rarely needed, so an agent can differentiate it from sibling tools without opening 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use: only when setting a client up ahead of the published work, and when not to: publish_html with a client argument already auto-creates the space. This is a direct when/when-not guideline with a named alternative.

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