ms_gui_create_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that by default the tool reuses existing documents to avoid duplicates, and that it can replace the current document. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects like overwriting without confirmation or error handling.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, then default behavior. No redundant information, and critical guidance is front-loaded.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not describe return values, validate the body input beyond mentioning it, or explain exportFile and ballAndStick behavior. More detail on outcomes and error cases would improve completeness.

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 only 40%, but the description adds significant value: it explains that the body parameter should be a MaterialsScript with a pre-created $doc variable, and implies the forceNew parameter's effect by describing default reuse. However, exportFile and ballAndStick parameters are not elaborated.

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 verb ('Create or replace'), resource ('current GUI document'), and input ('MaterialsScript body'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ms_gui_find_cif_import_current by recommending that for new structures.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: before using for a new structure, try ms_gui_find_cif_import_current first; use this tool only when no reliable open CIF or user credentials are available. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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