Create document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates that this tool creates a new document and returns its id, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or failure modes, but the 'new' wording rules out overwriting, and the return of an id is explicitly disclosed.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and immediately states the return value. There is no unnecessary text or repetition, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

The tool is a simple create operation with three fully documented parameters and no nested objects. The description mentions the return value (the id) and the schema covers all inputs. The only slight gap is that the description does not explicitly mention the 'mode' parameter or its default, but that information is present in the schema, so the overall context is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to, since every parameter (markdown, title, mode) is fully documented in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'new mdgen document', clearly distinguishing it from the list/read/update/delete siblings. It also explicitly states the return value (the created document id), which removes any ambiguity about the operation's primary effect.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names (list_documents, read_document, update_document, delete_document) make the appropriate use case strongly implied, so the lack of explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap.

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