create_document

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

The description discloses the creation action, auto-opening for editing, and the need for explicit saving. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does not mention permissions, error states, or side effects like file overwriting.

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 concise with four sentences plus an Args list. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: creation, auto-open, and subsequent editing/saving. It does not address error cases like invalid template paths or handle conflicts, but the core behavior is well-defined.

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?

The description explains all three parameters in the Args list, adding context beyond the schema (e.g., template_path is a .dotx file, document_handle is for storing). Schema coverage is 0% so the description fills the gap well. Could clarify behavior when handle is not provided.

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 it creates a new .docx document (from scratch or template). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'open_document' and 'create_from_markdown' by specifying blank document creation and the automatic opening for editing.

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 for when to use this tool (creating a new document) and gives follow-up guidance (use save_document or start editing). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives like 'open_document', but the workflow is clear.

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