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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral default: if visibility is omitted, the document is owner-only (login_required, restricted to your email). This is a meaningful security-relevant behavior beyond the schema. It does not cover authentication or success response, but the disclosed default is significant.

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 description is two sentences, approximately 30 words, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the crucial default detail in the second. It is concise, free of filler, and every word adds value.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema and the presence of eight parameters, the schema descriptions are very thorough, covering all parameters with examples. The description adds the key default visibility behavior, which is the most important contextual nuance. It does not mention prerequisites or response format, but overall it is adequate for a create operation given the rich schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the visibility default that is already fully documented in the parameter description. All eight parameters are thoroughly described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 operation: 'Create a new mkdshare.DEV document.' The verb 'Create' and resource 'document' precisely define the purpose, and it is distinct from siblings like update_document. The additional sentence about visibility default adds purposeful nuance without confusing the primary action.

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 provides clear context by mentioning the default visibility behavior when omitted, which is an important usage decision. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., update_document for editing) or state when not to use this tool. Still, the creation context is obvious and unambiguous.

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