app_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 does well: it discloses that the new document is focused on return, why the `focused` flag matters for subsequent library/board calls, and that a failed save is raised as an error naming the missing folder rather than a silent `saved: false`. It does not address what happens if a file already exists at `file_path` or permission/overwrite behavior, which is the remaining gap for a disk-writing mutation.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is justified by the 0% schema coverage. The paragraph on focus/error semantics is slightly repetitive ('a new one left behind the old meant the next call wrote into the old one'), but each sentence informs a real calling decision.

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 4-param creation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, all parameters, focus side effects, project attachment, and error semantics, and even restates the return keys despite an output schema existing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it enumerates valid `kind` values, requires absolute paths with Windows backslashes for `file_path`, explains `name` defaults to the filename, and explains the `add_to_project` default and what False means. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+effect: 'Create a new blank document of a given kind and save it to disk,' and names the underlying operation. It distinguishes itself from near-siblings like app_save_document, app_close_document, and the lib_create_* tools by emphasizing a new blank document written to an explicit path.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it ('Use this to create a .PcbDoc before running update_pcb, to spin up a fresh .SchDoc, library, OutJob'), giving concrete precursor contexts. It does not contrast with proj_add_document (which attaches an existing file to a project), so the alternative routing is left implicit rather than stated.

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