Create document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance with '(metadata)' – that this creates a record rather than uploading file content – but says nothing about permissions, required fields, or side effects. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is an adequate 3.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the action, with no wasted prose. The trailing 'etc.' is an imprecise shortcut that slightly weakens precision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a creation tool with a fully free-form input object, the description does not indicate which fields are required or that linking the document to an item may require a separate call – gaps the opaque schema cannot fill.

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?

The schema exposes only a single opaque free-form 'input' object (additionalProperties: {}), so the schema itself conveys almost nothing about field names. The description's 'Fields: name, entities_id, comment, etc.' adds genuine meaning beyond the schema. The vague 'etc.' keeps it from a 5.

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') and the parenthetical '(metadata)' signals this creates the document record rather than attaching content, which meaningfully separates it from siblings like glpi_create_document_item or glpi_get_document. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling document tools (glpi_create_document_item, glpi_get_document, glpi_list_documents), nor any prerequisites. The '(metadata)' hint implies a usage boundary but the agent must infer it.

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