doc_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates documents but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of content sources adds minimal context, but critical operational details are missing for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise detail on content sources. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a creation tool but lacks depth. It covers the what and how (content sources) but omits behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. For a 4-parameter mutation tool, more context would be needed for a higher score.

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 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of rawContent and website ('Use this OR rawContent, not both'), which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond the schema's basics.

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 action ('Create a new document') and resource ('in Pickaxe knowledge base'), with additional detail about content sources ('from raw content or scrape a website URL'). It distinguishes from siblings like doc_delete (deletion) and doc_get (retrieval), though not explicitly. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage for document creation, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_connect or doc_list. It mentions content source options (rawContent or website), which provides some context, but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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