create_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a new drawing document but does not disclose whether it requires Visio to be open, whether it replaces the current document, whether it creates a file or just an in-memory object, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., Is Visio running?), side effects (e.g., Does it close the current document?), or what the tool returns. An agent would not know whether it can call this without first ensuring the application is open or whether it will disrupt existing work.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The schema already covers the absence of inputs, and the description adds no param-related confusion. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing here reduces that.

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 ('Create') and a clear resource ('a new blank Visio drawing document'), distinguishing it from siblings like open_document (which would open an existing file) and save_document. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it is implied that it is for creating new documents rather than opening or saving existing ones. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, so the usage context is only implied by the verb and resource.

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