create_document

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains return types (Document object or ToolError), default behaviors (GUID generation, class_identifier default), and a constraint (file_in_folder_identifier starts with '/'). It lacks details on authentication or side effects, but for a creation tool, this is sufficient.

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 somewhat verbose with repeated headers ('Description:') and a bold prerequisites section. While the information is front-loaded, it could be more streamlined. Two clear improvements: remove the redundant 'Description:' line and integrate prerequisites more concisely.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers creation prerequisites, parameter roles, and return types. It could mention idempotency or naming constraints, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all six parameters, including defaults, format requirements, and behavioral notes (e.g., 'CheckinMinorVersion should always be included'), adding value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Creates a document in the content repository with specified properties,' clearly indicating the verb ('creates') and resource ('document'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like checkout, checkin, or update, which have different primary actions.

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 prerequisites in a numbered sequence, stating that determine_class and get_class_property_descriptions must be called first. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the creation use case is clear and different from siblings.

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