create_documentCreate a new empty Google Docs document with a specified title in Google Drive, returning its document ID, title, and URL for further editing.
Create a new, empty Google Docs document with the given title in the user’s Google Drive. Returns the new documentId, title and URL. To add content afterwards use append_text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Title of the new document, e.g. "FYP Proposal". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the document is created empty in the user's Drive, and it names the return values (documentId, title, URL), which matters since there is no output schema.
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 short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the follow-up routing sentence placed last. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 one-parameter creation tool this is complete: it covers what is created, where it lives, what is returned, and what to do next. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description naming the returned fields.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including length bounds and an example. The description only restates 'given title' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Create), resource (Google Docs document), and scope (new, empty, given title, in the user's Drive). It also names the sibling append_text for the follow-up content step, so an agent can distinguish it from insert_text/append_text tools without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent this produces an empty document and routes content creation to append_text afterwards, which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to use copy_document instead of create_document), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.