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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: project_slug must exist (a failure mode) and group_slugs are created on demand (a side effect that creates group records beyond the document itself) — genuinely useful disclosure not present in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the two constraints that most affect a successful call. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the rich schema covers the 8 parameters. The remaining gap is duplicate-slug conflict behavior — given idempotentHint=false, the description should say whether creating with an existing slug fails or overwrites.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents tenant_slug, include_body, and document_date in detail. The description still adds referential semantics the schema omits: project_slug must pre-exist and group_slugs are auto-created, though its slug auto-generation note only repeats 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new document') that clearly separates it from kb_documents_update, kb_documents_get, and kb_documents_list. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the edit_begin/edit_commit drafting flow, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' plus the note that project_slug must already exist, which tells the agent a prerequisite call (kb_projects_list/create) may be needed. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the kb_documents_edit_begin/apply/commit flow for authoring content.

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