create_document

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: the tool refuses to overwrite, auto-creates parent directories, and produces a blank document. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, overwrite exception and alternative, parent-directory side effect, downstream workflow, and template alternative. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 2-parameter creation tool, the description covers the key behaviors needed to call it correctly: no overwrite, automatic parent directory creation, and blank output. The output schema exists, so the absence of return-value detail is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that file_path is the location of the new .docx file and title is an optional core property. It does not detail every validation rule, but for only two simple parameters the semantic roles are clear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a new blank .docx file with an optional title core property. It also distinguishes itself from copy_document by explicitly noting that it refuses to overwrite existing files.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use copy_document with overwrite=True when overwriting is needed, and go to the assembly pack for template-driven builds. It also lays out the intended next steps for populating the document, making it clear when this tool is the starting point.

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