create_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that material and part number are populated immediately and explains template/metric/english choices, but it does not state whether the document is saved, opened, or requires an active connection, nor does it describe permissions or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and rationale, then uses a clean Args list for parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The output schema exists, and the description documents most parameters and the main use case well. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, it should say more about persistence, side effects, or connection requirements.

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 coverage is only 14%, but the description compensates strongly: it defines allowed kind values, template options ('metric', 'english', or a template path), material library syntax, and the meaning of part_number and description as BOM iProperties. The one undocumented parameter, instance, already has a schema description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new document,' and clarifies that it creates a part, sheet metal part, or assembly with material and part number populated. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_drawing or manage_documents, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a rationale ('so no part is left Generic for the BOM and the mass') but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_documents, create_drawing, or save_document. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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