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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a specific safety guarantee: 'Does not modify the original upload.' This goes beyond the annotation by explicitly stating what side effect is avoided. While other behaviors (e.g., permissions) are not mentioned, the key non-destructive trait is well disclosed.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core action, and the second adds an important side-effect note. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and a key side-effect. It does not discuss optionality of fields or prerequisites, but for a targeted creation tool this is adequate and contextually complete enough for an agent to proceed.

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 67%, with the two UUID wrappers documented. The description adds meaning for the fields parameter by referring to 'collected field values,' which aligns with the schema's key/value array. However, it doesn't clarify that fields is optional or detail the expected structure beyond what the schema already shows, so only moderate added value.

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 action ('Create a finished document') and distinguishes the resource as a 'company user-uploaded template' filled with 'collected field values.' This directly differentiates it from generic document creation tools like documents_create_document, making the primary purpose unmistakable.

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 conveys an obvious use case: when you have a user template and field values to fill it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the phrase 'filling a company user-uploaded template' gives clear contextual guidance without ambiguity.

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