document_create

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

The annotations only supply destructiveHint=false; the description usefully adds the no-overwrite guarantee ('Existing outputs are never overwritten'), which is real behavioral context. However it does not say what actually happens on path conflict (error vs skip) or note permission/auth requirements, so it adds value but not richness.

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 tight sentences with the core action and creation modes front-loaded, then the no-overwrite guarantee. No filler whatsoever.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations plus the no-overwrite note. But for a 7-parameter creation tool at 0% schema coverage with no preset-vs-custom guidance, the description leaves notable gaps an agent would need to resolve by inspection.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It loosely gestures at the width/height/unit/preset and outputPath parameters but adds no syntax, format, or constraints (allowed units, preset list, workspaceId format, the pages array).

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 (creates) and resource (SVG document), and names the two creation modes (custom dimensions vs named preset). It clearly reads as a create-new tool rather than the numerous document_import_* siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with import.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never says when to prefer a named preset over bounded custom dimensions, nor does it name an alternative sibling (e.g., document_import) for bringing in existing content.

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