create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a document and optional title/author specification, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what happens if a file with the same name exists (though 'overwrite' parameter hints at this), doesn't describe permissions or authentication needs, doesn't mention rate limits or side effects, and provides no information on the return value or success/failure behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose and key optional parameters. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 complexity of a document creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like file handling, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity, more context is needed to guide proper 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 low at 25% (only 'name' has a description in the schema). The description adds some value by mentioning 'title' and 'author' as optional parameters, but it doesn't cover 'overwrite' or provide deeper semantics for any parameters beyond what's implied. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but doesn't fully document all four parameters.

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 the verb ('create') and resource ('HWPX document'), and mentions optional title/author specification. It distinguishes from siblings like 'open_document' or 'save_as' by focusing on creation rather than opening or saving existing documents. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'insert_paragraph' is about modifying rather than creating).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct comparisons with sibling tools like 'open_document' for existing documents or 'set_workspace' for workspace context. Usage is implied through the action but not explicitly stated.

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