create_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new Word document' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new Word document') and adds a key detail ('with optional metadata'). There is zero waste, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral aspects like error handling, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool creating documents, more context is needed to guide effective agent invocation.

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 mentions 'optional metadata' but doesn't explain what parameters (filename, title, author) mean or how they're used. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify semantics like filename format or metadata constraints, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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') and resource ('new Word document'), specifying it's for document creation with metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_document' or 'list_available_documents' by focusing on initial creation rather than modification or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'add_paragraph' which might also create content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It mentions 'optional metadata' but doesn't specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing document context or when to choose this over 'copy_document'. The description lacks context for usage decisions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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