create_office_document

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the default output path (system temp directory) and that files persist on disk. It does not disclose potential overwrite behavior, but the annotations already cover safety, and the creation context implies non-destructive 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently includes the key alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (multiple formats, content blocks, markup), the description is complete enough: it covers supported formats, content types, LaTeX markup, output path behavior, and the editing alternative. The schema fills in the remaining details, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default output_path behavior (temp file), which is not fully explicit in the schema. It also reinforces the content block concept, but that is already well-defined 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a NEW Word, Excel, or PowerPoint file from structured content. It uses specific verbs and resource types, and explicitly distinguishes itself from edit_office_document, making it easy to differentiate among siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for creating new documents and provides a direct when-not-to-use alternative: 'To edit an existing file, use edit_office_document instead.' This clearly directs the agent to the appropriate sibling for editing tasks.

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