docs_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions core behavior (creates a doc, optional initial text) but does not disclose side effects like Drive storage, authentication needs, or that it returns a document ID. For a simple create operation, this is borderline adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that is immediately front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary filler or redundant detail.

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 simple 2-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and optional parameter. It does not mention that the doc is created in Drive or any prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

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. It clarifies that body_text is optional and serves as initial content, but it does not explicitly explain the title parameter (though that is self-evident from the schema property name). It adds some value but not comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('a new Google Doc'), and an optional scope ('with optional initial text content'). This distinguishes it from siblings like docs_append_text or drive_create_file, which modify or create other file types.

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?

The description implies usage for creating a new Google Doc, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools, no exclusions, and no alternative tool mentions. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks direct usage clarity.

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