create_doc

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

The description discloses behaviors beyond the minimal annotations: it reveals the two sequential API calls with no rollback, the lack of a delete endpoint, and the orphaned Doc risk if the page call fails. It also states the doc is PRIVATE by default and sharing is not handled by this tool. This is rich context that the openWorldHint/destructiveHint annotations do not provide.

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?

Though the description is long, it is tightly structured: purpose + use case, then operational warnings, then an Args list. Every sentence adds value—the failure mode warning, the private default, and the correction path are all essential. There is no fluff or repetition, making it an efficient use of tokens.

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 6 parameters, an output schema (returns URL), and annotations that provide little detail, this description covers all bases: purpose, return value, creation semantics, failure behavior, correction strategy, defaults, and parameter specifics. The agent is fully equipped to decide when to use it, what to pass, and what to expect.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. Each parameter is described with default values and nuances (e.g., parent_id defaulting to the configured development space, parent_type needing to match parent_id, content_format options, visibility options). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema, especially the warning about mismatched parent_id/parent_type.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Create a native ClickUp Doc with one page of content, and return its URL.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_doc_page and get_doc. The mention of use cases (shareable reports/RFCs) further reinforces the tool's specific role.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this for shareable reports/RFCs that need real markdown tables and headers' and it directly contrasts with task descriptions. It also names an alternative for corrections: 'should use update_doc_page on the existing doc_id/page_id rather than calling create_doc again.' This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance agents need.

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