new_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the document starts empty, it is persisted to a specific workspace path, and modelling conventions (mm, +Z up, degrees) apply. It does not disclose behavior on name collision (overwrite vs. error), which is the one significant gap for a create operation.

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?

Two dense sentences with the primary action front-loaded; the second sentence delivers global unit/orientation context that would otherwise have to be repeated per tool. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers identity, persistence, and coordinate conventions. Only the duplicate-name/error case is left unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `name` is revealed to be both the document identity and the filename stem (workspace/<name>.FCStd), implying no extension should be passed. It adds no guidance on naming constraints or invalid characters.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create an empty FreeCAD document") plus the concrete side effect of where it lands (workspace/<name>.FCStd). It also distinguishes itself from the surrounding modeling tools by stating that every other tool consumes the returned doc name.

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?

"Every other tool takes this `doc` name" effectively establishes this as the entry point of the workflow, which is the key selection signal versus siblings like list_documents or import_step. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or what to do if the document already exists.

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