create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the core behavior (creating documents with optional nesting and publish/draft status) and mentions the return format ('Result message with the new document ID'). However, it doesn't cover potential side effects like permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The bulleted lists enhance readability while maintaining efficiency.

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 (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, and parameters. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if 'collection_id' is invalid, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'title' as the document title, 'collection_id' as where to create it, 'text' as optional markdown content, 'parent_document_id' for nesting, and 'publish' for immediate publication vs. draft. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Creates a new document') and resource ('in a specified collection'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_collection' (which creates collections) and 'update_document' (which modifies existing documents). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list: 'Add new content to a knowledge base', 'Create documentation, guides, or notes', 'Add a child document to an existing parent', and 'Start a new document thread or topic'. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_document' or 'add_comment'.

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