fusion_new_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'new, empty', which indicates the document starts fresh, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it replaces a current design), naming behavior, or any required permissions. Given zero annotation coverage, the description provides only minimal insight.

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 a single sentence with no filler, directly stating the action and context. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a hint of usage context ('to reconstruct the part in'). However, it lacks any explanation of the optional parameter and does not describe what the tool returns or how to proceed after creation. While minimal, it is adequate for such a basic tool, but still incomplete.

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 0%—the description does not mention the 'name' parameter at all. The schema lists it as optional with a default of null, but the description adds no meaning about how the name is used or its significance. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's purpose ambiguous.

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 what the tool does: 'Create a new, empty Fusion design document' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which operate on existing documents rather than creating them, so it differentiates itself well.

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 includes the phrase 'to reconstruct the part in', which implies this is the starting step in a workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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