New Document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main side effects: a new document is inserted into the document list and focus switches by default. The edge case about make_active=false being refused on a blank document is covered in the parameter schema, and the description adds the non-destructive context. It does not discuss return values, but none are expected for a creation 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 two sentences with no filler. The action and the primary use case are front-loaded, and each sentence contributes meaningful information about behavior and purpose.

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 simple creation tool with two optional parameters and a well-covered schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, the default behavior, and why it is useful. No output schema is needed to understand the call, and there are no hidden prerequisites that would block correct usage.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces that make_active defaults to switching focus but adds little beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 names a specific action ('Insert a fresh empty BaseDocument'), a precise resource (C4D's document list), and a key behavior (switch focus by default). It also distinguishes itself from destructive alternatives by noting it does not overwrite the current document, which separates it from reset_scene and similar tools.

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 clear context: use this to start a clean scene without overwriting the current one. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the 'without overwriting' phrasing provides enough situational guidance for an agent to pick it over destructive scene operations.

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