create_from_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that smart typography is applied automatically and the document is opened for editing, which are helpful behaviors. However, it does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on invalid markdown, or any permission requirements. This leaves gaps in transparency.

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: purpose sentence, feature list, and parameter definitions. The feature list of GFM support is slightly verbose but relevant. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently uses bullet points for features.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description covers the creation process, supported features, auto-open behavior, and parameter relationships. It is mostly complete, though it omits error handling or prerequisites like file existence.

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. It defines all four parameters: output_path (required), md_path and markdown (mutually exclusive), and template_path (optional). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only information, though it could detail path formats or constraints.

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 the tool creates a new .docx from markdown content. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_document (which likely creates an empty document) and insert_text (which adds to existing). The verb and resource are specific and action-oriented.

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 explicitly says 'Provide exactly one of md_path or markdown', which is a clear usage guideline. It also notes automatic opening. However, it does not contrast with similar tools (e.g., when to use create_document vs this), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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