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

Annotations declare the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: 'Other project members can read it' discloses the visibility/auth model, and the requestId retry guidance flags the idempotency caveat. It stops short of describing the returned resource, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words. The visibility note and retry caveat are packed into single short sentences.

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 handling return values and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs to add visibility and retry semantics, which it does. Complete for the agent's needs, though it could note how content is rendered or what project members' read access implies.

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 all four parameters in detail. The description only paraphrases that content is 'optional Markdown' and implies title is required, adding little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (Doc) plus scope (the specified accessible project, with a title and optional Markdown body). The resource makes it trivially separable from create_project/create_task, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from doc siblings like update_doc or get_doc.

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 name and by the 'specified accessible project' prerequisite, hinting that a project must exist and be accessible. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to reach for update_doc/edit_doc_content instead.

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