create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavior-disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'create' statement by specifying the exact IDs returned in one shot and that no follow-ups are needed, giving the agent useful expectations about side effects and output.

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 two tight sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second delivers the key return-value benefit. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the expected return values and the workflow benefit. It does not cover edge cases like failures or whether a default Part Studio always exists, but for typical agent use the context is complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters (name, isPublic, description) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Create a new Onshape document.' It also clarifies the tool's unique value by explaining the single-call return of documentId, workspaceId, and default Part Studio elementId, distinguishing it from follow-up tools like get_document_summary and find_part_studios.

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 clear practical context: when creating a new document, the agent can use this tool and skip the two follow-up calls. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions with all sibling creation tools, but the guidance is concrete and sufficient for routing.

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