Create document (raw payload)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover the safety profile. It adds that the tool POSTs a raw body, but does not elaborate on response behavior, error cases, or side effects beyond the implicit creation. This is adequate but not rich; the 'escape hatch' framing adds some context.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The description is front-loaded with the essential purpose ('Escape hatch for the Send Data API: POST...') and immediately gives the shape requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple (raw POST) and the schema covers both parameters. The description provides the expected body shape and directs users to the common-case alternative. It does not explain the return value or the effect of the `show` parameter, but those are less critical for an escape hatch and are covered by the schema. Overall, it is complete enough.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description repeats the expected shape `{ fileType: {...}, data: <DocumentChange> }` which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's `body` description. There is no extra detail about the `show` parameter, but the schema covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Escape hatch for the Send Data API: POST a raw request body to `/v2/doc`.' It identifies the specific verb (POST), resource (/v2/doc), and scope (raw payload). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by saying 'Use `banana_create_document` for the common cases.'

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 provides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Escape hatch' implies it is for cases that fall outside the standard wrapper, and 'Use `banana_create_document` for the common cases' gives a clear alternative. This is direct and actionable.

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