Create document (high level)

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context: it opens a new window for review, does not modify existing files, and requires either accountingType or ac2_base64+title. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then side effects, then parameter selection guidance. No filler or 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?

The description covers core behavior, side effects, and parameter modes. It lacks return value details, but no output schema exists and the tool's high-level, show-in-window purpose makes the return trivial. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds critical usage semantics: the either/or relationship between accountingType and ac2_base64+title, and that row changes are applied table by table. This clarifies how parameters combine, adding value beyond the schema.

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 tool creates a NEW accounting file in Banana and shows it, with the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'accounting file'. It distinguishes from modifying existing files and from the lower-level sibling create_document_raw by emphasizing its high-level, show-in-window behavior.

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 explicitly says when to use: to create a new file and show it, and clarifies it does not modify an already-open file, which is an exclusion. However, it does not directly name alternatives like banana_create_document_raw, so the comparison with siblings is only implicit.

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