Create Doc

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

The description goes beyond annotations by revealing important internal details: the body starts at index 1, a new empty doc has total length 2 with a section break at index 0 and newline at index 1. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent understand side effects and subsequent index calculations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes useful operational details, though the inner-document index explanation could be tightened slightly. Overall, every sentence earns its place and no filler exists.

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 that the tool has an output schema, fully described parameters, and annotations, the description provides complete context for correct invocation. It covers creation behavior, initial content limitations, and a clear follow-up workflow. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents. It does clarify that the content parameter is for initial plain text and that rich content should be built with batch_update_doc, but this is contextual rather than parameter-specific.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new Google Doc and optionally inserts initial content.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like import_to_google_doc and create_drive_file by explicitly focusing on creating a Google Doc from scratch.

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 clear workflow guidance: after creation, use batch_update_doc with insert_text operations and end_of_segment=true, then inspect_doc_structure before formatting. It does not explicitly compare create_doc with alternative creation tools like import_to_google_doc, but the post-creation workflow is strong enough to guide an agent on when and how to proceed.

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