create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the interactive prompt behavior, the fallback chain for folder enumeration (API key → JWT → URL/ID input), and the skip behavior at the organization root. It could mention create-side effects like whether duplicate names are rejected or whether content is required, but the prompt/picker mechanics are thoroughly disclosed.

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, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then explains the folder selection mechanics. It's slightly verbose in the middle section about folder enumeration fallbacks, but every detail serves the agent's decision-making. Some of the enumeration detail could arguably be trimmed, but it's no waste.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is complete. It explains the folder placement decision matrix, the prompt interaction, the root override, and fallback mechanisms. The 100% schema coverage compensates for the missing output schema, and the description's richness covers the interactive/network-dependent behaviors that the schema cannot express.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between document_folder_id and skip_folder_prompt (how they interact), and clarifies that skip_folder_prompt=true means 'organization root.' The schema already details folder ID location hints, so the description's marginal addition is modest but useful.

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 purpose: 'Create a new document in IT Glue for an organization.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (document in organization), which is distinct from siblings like create_document_section, publish_document, and archive_document. The description also differentiates from the search/get/read siblings by being the creation tool.

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 gives excellent when-to-use guidance, explaining the folder-picker flow in detail: when to pass document_folder_id, when to pass skip_folder_prompt=true, and how folder enumeration behaves (API key first, then JWT, then accepting URLs or numeric IDs). It explicitly states the behavior when neither folder parameter is supplied (user prompted), giving clear decision criteria for when to use the root-creation shortcut.

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