Create a document

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

The description reveals important behavior beyond the annotations: it names the underlying API calls (documents.create vs Drive conversion), explains how markdown becomes native Docs formatting, discloses the returned fields (id, name, mimeType), and states the file lands in My Drive root. This is rich behavioral context and is consistent with the annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: the basic behavior, the no-markdown path, the markdown conversion path, and the location/scope limitation. There is no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return value, the two creation paths, the markdown formatting behavior, and the file location side effect. It also notes what the server does not handle. For a two-parameter create tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that the no-markdown path accepts only a title, and it explains the conversion behavior and result shape of the markdown parameter. This goes beyond the schema's simple field 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Creates a new Google Doc and returns its documentId.' It clearly differentiates the two modes (empty vs markdown) and references insert_text/import_markdown as follow-up tools, helping an agent distinguish it from those siblings.

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 concrete usage context: without markdown the doc is created empty and content is added later via insert_text/import_markdown; with markdown, content is converted natively. It also warns that moving/sharing is outside this server's coverage. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer other creation-related siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for the main decision.

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