create_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing that output is a plain .docx, that paragraphs are created in order, and that many Word features are unsupported. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return value, but for this simple creation tool the disclosed limitations are significant and useful.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the purpose is stated first, followed by clear limitations and an alternative reference. Every sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter creation tool, the description plus schema covers the essential behavior, limitations, and disk output. It does not describe return value or overwrite semantics, but given the output schema is absent and the function is straightforward, the definition is largely complete. Mentioning the XML-based sibling could have improved routing further.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both path and paragraphs. The description adds the contextual note that each string becomes one plain paragraph in order, which reinforces the schema but does not add major new semantics beyond it.

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 ('creates') and resource ('new Word document (.docx)') along with the exact input form (a simple list of paragraph texts) and output behavior (saves it to disk). It also differentiates from siblings like create_document_from_xml by explicitly limiting the scope to plain paragraphs with no formatting, styles, tables, or images.

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 clearly implies use for simple paragraph-only documents and explicitly calls out unsupported features (run styling, tables, images, headers/footers, track changes), directing users to the underlying library for those cases. It could be stronger by naming a specific sibling tool like create_document_from_xml as the alternative for richer documents, but the guidance is still clear.

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