create_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing a hard non-obvious capacity constraint ('A resource holds at most 5'), which materially affects invocation ordering. It does not say what happens at the limit or what permissions are required.

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, zero filler, and the essential information (what is created and where) is front-loaded ahead of the capacity limit.

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 7-parameter create tool with strong schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema give an agent enough to invoke correctly, and the sibling references list_projects/list_calendars live in the schema. It omits failure behavior at the 5-document cap and permission requirements, which would round it out.

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 86%, so the schema already documents resource, project, is_hidden, calendar_id, map_image_asset_id and the type enum. The description's list of types largely duplicates the enum description ('page (wiki text), map, time (timeline) or board') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and clarifies what a 'document' actually is (a tab) plus the parent it attaches to ('a resource: a page, a map, a timeline or a board'), which the bare name does not convey. It stops short of naming a sibling (create_resource, update_document, create_from_template), so the agent gets a clear purpose but no explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Add ... to a resource' rather than stated: no when-to-use conditions, no guidance on choosing this over create_resource, create_from_template or update_document, and no prerequisites. The 'at most 5' note is a constraint, not routing guidance.

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