create_document_type

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

The annotations already cover read-only and destructive hints, so the description only needed to add context beyond them. It adds that matching pattern and algorithm are used for automatic document classification, but it does not disclose potential side effects on existing documents or validation behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and includes only meaningful detail: the resource type, the optional configuration, and the purpose. There is no repetition of schema fields or annotation information.

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 low-complexity create operation, the description plus the schema covers the essential call intent: required name, optional matching pattern, and algorithm for classification. It does not explain the exact format of 'match' or any return value, but those are minor given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the resource.

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 only 50%, and the description partially compensates by identifying 'matching pattern' for the match parameter and 'algorithm' for matching_algorithm. However, it adds no semantic detail for name or is_insensitive, and it does not fully bridge the gap left by the undocumented match parameter.

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 verb ('Create'), resource ('new document type'), and scope ('optional matching pattern and algorithm for automatic document classification'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like update_document_type, delete_document_type, and list_document_types.

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 implies the intended use: when a new document type needs to be created. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the create verb and the sibling tool names make the appropriate context clear enough for an agent.

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