Create a new Google Doc

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral weight. It discloses that content is rendered as markdown, default placement is My Drive root, and warns about a real failure mode (silent text loss) with inline content. It doesn't mention return values or auth, but for a create operation it offers solid transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core creation purpose, folder placement default, and the critical long-document guidance. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers creation semantics, folder placement, a parameter trade-off, and a behavioral warning. It doesn't describe return values, but that's not required without an output schema. It lacks only minor details like error handling or prerequisites, but remains strong overall.

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 67%, leaving title and content without descriptions. The description adds meaning to content ('rendered as markdown') and contentFile (server reads directly, preferred for long docs, mutually exclusive with content). It also clarifies folder (URL or id) and default behavior. This compensates well for the schema gaps.

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 opens with 'Create a new Google Doc' — a specific verb and resource — and clarifies it supports a title, optional markdown content, and optional folder placement. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_doc, overwrite_doc, and read_doc.

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 recommends contentFile for long documents to avoid silent text dropping, which is an alternative to content. It also implies creation vs. editing by naming the action 'Create' and describing the default My Drive root. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling create/update tools, but the usage context is clear.

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