uselink_create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the authentication binding ('active PAT'), the return value details, the draft nature of the document, and the default placement behavior. It also implies that the operation is additive (create) without destructive side effects, which is appropriate for a create 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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: return behavior, content flexibility, and placement guidance. No redundant or filler language is present.

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 create tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: return values (id, slug, edit URL), the draft status, the ability to defer content, and default placement. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that project_id/folder_id control the destination location and that content can be omitted for later update. This enriches the parameter semantics, though other parameters like format and slug are already well-covered by the schema.

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 a new draft document'), names the resource ('uselink workspace') and binding ('active PAT'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like uselink_update_document or uselink_publish_document. It also mentions the return of id, slug, and edit URL, reinforcing the tool's core function.

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?

It explicitly guides when to use this tool versus the alternative by noting that content can be omitted and added later via uselink_update_document. It also explains how to direct placement via project_id/folder_id and the default fallback, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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