create_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals the main side effect, creating a formatted .docx document, and mentions theme, logo, and header/footer handling. However, it does not describe output path behavior, overwrite semantics, return value, or failure modes, leaving some operational behavior implicit.

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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists supported features in a compact, informative sequence. Every phrase adds orientation value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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's complexity, nested block schema, theme object, and lack of an output schema, the one-sentence description provides a useful overview but leaves operational context implicit. It does not clarify expected behavior around output_path, the relationship between theme and theme_path, or what the caller should expect as a result. The rich input schema compensates for part of this gap, but not all of it.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a high-level framing for blocks and themes, but it does not provide parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Vytvoří') and resource ('Word (.docx) dokument'), then lists the supported content types such as headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, callouts, and header/footer with logo and theme. This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like convert_markdown, save_theme, and list_themes.

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 implies the tool is for generating .docx files from structured blocks, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over convert_markdown or when not to use it. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned, so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling tool names.

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