Graphite: new document

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the document becomes the active tab, it returns a document_id, it has no artboard, and inserted artwork uses document coordinates with y growing downward. It stops short of describing failure/permission behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, followed by behavioral detail and the routing rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 simple one-optional-param creation tool with full annotations and an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers action, side effects, coordinate behavior, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the sole 'name' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including default and length bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('Create a new, empty Graphite document') plus a side effect ('make it the active tab'). It also distinguishes itself from the edit-what-is-open case, so an agent can tell it apart from graphite_get_document/select_document without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('before graphite_insert_svg when the user asks for a fresh document') and when not to ('do not call it if they want to edit what is already open'). Both the trigger and the exclusion are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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