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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: free-tier limits, post-expiry access rights, non-deletion of files, publish behavior, removal effects on public access, private no-store responses, and a security warning about untrusted text. These are consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and materially help the agent understand the operation.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and subsequent sentences carry relevant behavioral constraints rather than filler. The paragraph is dense and somewhat long, but each detail—limits, privacy, publish semantics, security—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?

The description is behaviorally rich, but for a create tool with no output schema it omits what the response will contain (e.g., an identifier) and leaves the required idempotency_key unexplained. These gaps reduce completeness for correct invocation and retry handling.

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 only 50%: 'name' is documented in the schema, but the required 'idempotency_key' has an empty schema description and is entirely unaddressed in the tool description. The description does not compensate for this gap or add any meaning about parameter usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a private base') and clarifies privacy scope. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from publish_base ('Only publish_base exposes current files...'), though it does not contrast with create_collection, another sibling that also creates a resource.

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?

It provides context such as 'Personal-account operations,' free/paid capacity limits, and that purchase requires a browser action, which implicitly guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus create_collection or add_base_document, nor does it state prerequisites for calling it.

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