Create space

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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: the caller becomes owner with write scope, and slug is auto-derived from name when omitted. With readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false already covering the safety profile, the remaining gap is silence on failure modes (e.g. name/slug collisions) and whether ownership is transferable.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core action and ownership effect come first, the routing guidance second; every clause 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 4-param create tool with a full schema and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies purpose, ownership semantics and sibling routing — enough to call it correctly. It stops short of noting collision/error behavior, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, slug, org_id and idempotency_key in detail. The description only restates the slug-derivation rule, which the schema also states, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data — 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a space") plus the ownership consequence, which is more than a name restatement. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_page and update_space, so an agent can route without opening sibling 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ("start a new top-level container of pages") and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: create_page for adding pages to an existing space, update_space for renaming. Nothing is left to inference.

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