Create document

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers two meaningful behaviors: missing parent documents are auto-created, and an existing path is not overwritten so duplicates are created instead. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or what the call returns, but the side-effect disclosure is genuinely 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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the path convention and collision behavior follow in order of importance.

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 three-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, path format, parent-creation side effect, and collision behavior — enough to call it correctly. Only permission/return-value context is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 all three parameters including the `/Notes/Idea` example. The description largely repeats the path semantics rather than adding new syntax or constraints, and says nothing about `notebook` or `markdown`, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a document from Markdown') and immediately qualifies the key input (Markdown source). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rename_document, move_document, or insert_block without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Create a document' — this is the tool for making a new document. It notes the collision case (existing path is not overwritten, a new document is created alongside), which shapes when the agent should/shouldn't rely on it, but it never names alternatives such as get_document for checking existence or list_documents for browsing.

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