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

The description adds a key behavioral constraint not present in the annotations: 'A document lives in a collection or in a project, never both.' It also clarifies the content modality options. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but the annotations already signal this is a mutating, non-destructive 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers placement options, and the third states the key constraint. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 7-parameter create tool, the description plus the fully documented schema covers most agent needs. Minor gaps remain: it does not describe the response/returned document identifier, and it does not clarify behavior when optional fields like kind or content are omitted.

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. The description adds value by explaining cross-parameter semantics: the exclusivity of collection vs project, the nesting relationship via parent, and the mapping of kind/content to Markdown or HTML. This goes beyond the field-level schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a document') and immediately spells out the two body formats (Markdown or HTML) and the three filing options (collection, project, parent). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_doc_collection or update_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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: creating a document and optionally placing it under a collection, project, or parent doc. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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