Create a blank document or a polished generic template for visual designs. Specify a name and optionally a template ID or design system to generate a new document in the collaborative editor.
Create a blank document or polished generic template. Get available template ids from workspace_open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| template | No | ||
| designSystem | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / designSystemAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "digest": {
+ "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9_-]{1,100}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "pattern": "^\\d+\\.\\d+\\.\\d+(?:-[A-Za-z0-9.-]+)?$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "version",
+ "digest"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the bare 'Create' action—no mention of side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to existing resources.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a valuable pointer for parameter values. Every sentence earns its place.
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 there is no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a nullable designSystem object with nested requirements, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the call contract. It fails to explain the designSystem parameter, return behavior, or any side-effect expectations beyond the annotation hints.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It provides one useful hint—'Get available template ids from workspace_open'—which addresses the template parameter, but it does not explain the required 'name' parameter or the 'designSystem' object at all.
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 states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('blank document or polished generic template'), and it differentiates the two creation modes. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like document_duplicate, but its core purpose is clear and actionable.
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 gives clear context: use this tool to create either a blank document or a generic template, and it directs the agent to workspace_open for template ids. It lacks explicit exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for a creation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.