engi_doc_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'create', implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or required permissions. This is insufficient for safe agent 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, which is concise and front-loaded, but it omits necessary details for a tool with 8 parameters. It achieves conciseness at the cost of completeness, which is acceptable only for very simple tools.

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's 8 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks information to understand the purpose of parameters, expected inputs, or return values, making effective invocation unlikely.

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 13% (only 'root' has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter semantics. Critical parameters like 'id', 'kind', 'path', 'template', and 'frontmatter' remain unexplained, leaving the agent unable to use them correctly.

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 specifies the verb 'create', the resource 'Markdown document', and the use of a 'template', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like engi_doc_read and engi_doc_patch_section. However, it does not specify what templates are available or the project context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like engi_decision_create or engi_requirement_create. It lacks any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, forcing the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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