document_create

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: false, and the description adds the explicit guarantee 'Existing outputs are never overwritten,' which reinforces and specifies the non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as potential validation failures, response format, or whether it works asynchronously. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, the added value is moderate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that leads with the primary action and then states the key constraint. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

With 7 parameters (including a pages array and multiple enums) and several document-related siblings, the description is too brief. It lacks information about parameter interactions (e.g., whether pages overrides width/height), any limitations on mixed inputs, or how the output path is used. The output schema exists, so return values are not required, but operational context is insufficient for an agent to use this reliably without additional docs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely references 'bounded custom dimensions' (width/height) and 'named page preset' (preset). It does not explain the meaning of unit, pages, outputPath, workspaceId, or the relationship between preset and explicit dimensions. Agents would need external knowledge to correctly structure calls.

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 SVG document' with a specific verb and resource, and further specifies it works 'from bounded custom dimensions or a named page preset'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or resize existing documents, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_resize, document_pages, or export_svg. It does not state prerequisites, restrictions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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