create_from_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses smart typography application and automatic opening. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), error handling, or limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose statement, a bullet-like list of supported features, a clear usage constraint, and a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the creation process and all parameters. It explains markdown support and the mutual exclusion. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., both md_path and markdown provided, invalid paths) and does not describe error behavior, slightly reducing completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with their meanings, mutual exclusivity, and optional nature (template_path, document_handle). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare types, though default behaviors for optional params could be more explicit.

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 'Create a new .docx document from markdown content.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (docx), and input (markdown). It further lists supported Markdown features, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_document' (empty doc) and 'export_markdown' (reverse direction).

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Provide exactly one of md_path or markdown.' It also mentions automatic opening for editing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other creation tools (like 'create_document' or 'fill_template') or state when not to use this tool.

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