r7_create

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the overwrite guard ('refuses to replace an existing file unless overwrite is true'), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about permission requirements, behavior on unsupported extensions, or where the file is written.

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 with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the overwrite caveat follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

With a rich 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose plus the one non-obvious behavioral rule. It is nearly complete, lacking only notes on failure modes or return behavior that an agent might benefit from.

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%, so every parameter including the format-specific ones (sheets, tables, paragraphs, title, overwrite) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format syntax or constraint detail beyond that, 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') and resource ('DOCX, XLSX or PPTX document') with the scoping qualifier NEW, which clearly separates it from siblings like r7_edit, r7_replace, r7_insert, and r7_sheet_write. An agent can identify the tool's operation without opening the schema.

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 refusal-to-replace rule implies the correct usage context (creating a fresh file rather than modifying one), but the description never names an alternative sibling such as r7_edit or r7_slide_create for existing documents, nor states when this tool should be preferred. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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