aras_create_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic action of creating and linking, but doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or any behavioral traits that could affect usage.

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 sentence, very concise. However, it's concise to the point of being under-specified, lacking crucial operational details that would justify its length.

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?

For a creation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain return values, prerequisites, or the behavior when optional parameters like perPart are omitted. Critical context is missing.

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 29%, so the description should compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It doesn't. It indirectly touches on the 'tipo' field by mentioning Document/CAD but provides no explanation for other parameters like name, item_number, authoring_tool, etc.

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 it creates a Document or CAD and links it to a Part, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the action from generic item creation or relationship creation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other creation tools like aras_create_item or aras_create_part. The description only says what it does, not when to prefer it.

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