create_part

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints at geometry (page coordinates, A4 layout, header near top vs footer near bottom) but says nothing about permissions, name-uniqueness rules, whether creation is idempotent, or what the tool returns.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and useful parenthetical context appended. The '{slots[]}' notation is cryptic without schema support, which slightly undercuts clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested free-form 'layout' object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much undefined: no layout structure, no name semantics, no failure modes. It is insufficient for an agent to call this correctly without guessing.

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 and only partly does: it explains that 'kind' chooses header vs footer position and that 'layout' holds slots in page coordinates. The required 'name' and the optional 'description' fields get no explanation at all, and the layout object's shape is not defined.

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 and resource ('Create a header or footer part') and immediately clarifies the scope via the kind distinction. Siblings like update_part/delete_part/list_parts make the CRUD role obvious, though the description never explicitly says it differs from create_template.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus update_part, create_template, or create_from_starter. It also omits prerequisites such as whether a template or document context must already exist before a part can be created.

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