Create a new Google Docs document with a required title and optional initial text content, enabling agents to start documents directly in Google Workspace.
Create a new Google Docs document with optional initial content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Document title | |
| content | No | Initial text content for the document |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits what the call returns (document ID/URL — critical since no output schema exists), whether auth/scopes are required, where in Drive the doc is created, and sharing/default-visibility behavior.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no redundancy and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is the cause of the coverage gaps noted elsewhere rather than a virtue here.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still needs to know the returned handle (doc ID), permission requirements, and default location/visibility. None of that is present, so the definition is incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only echoes that content is optional, adding nothing about format/limits or how content interacts with the title — baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Google Docs document'), which clearly separates it from docs_read and docs_append. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 never says when to use this versus alternatives such as docs_append, drive_upload, or other document creation paths, and lists no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.