create_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation action without mentioning permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response format. For a create operation, such omissions are significant gaps.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words, earning high marks for conciseness. It front-loads the essential verb and object. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices potential structure or elaboration, but this is not a significant penalty for a simple 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 simple create operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to mention what the response contains, any required preconditions, or what constitutes a successful creation. These missing details reduce completeness for an agent that needs to call it correctly in isolation.

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 schema covers both parameters (title and external_id) with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantics are needed since the schema 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'space', which unambiguously identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_spaces, get_space, and update_space by the verb, making the purpose clear. It doesn't add extra context about what a space is, but for a simple CRUD tool it's adequate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state conditions for creation, prerequisites, or contrast with update_space or delete_space. The agent is left to infer usage context, which is insufficient for a tool with many siblings.

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