docs_create

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 the two creation paths and the copy-then-fill workflow, but says nothing about permissions/scopes required, whether the new doc is opened or returned, or what identifier comes back, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with an em-dash and colon that front-loads the core action and then branches into modes. It is information-rich without filler, though the run-on structure takes a moment to parse.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the creation modes, template sourcing, and the follow-up fill step. It leaves only the return value and permission context unspecified, which is a modest gap.

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 already 80%, so the schema documents text, markdown, account, and template. The description reinforces that text/markdown apply to blank documents only and clarifies the template parameter accepts a gallery name or a URL/id, but adds little the schema does not already state.

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 ('Create a new Google Doc with a title') and immediately enumerates the two creation modes: blank with optional markdown/text body, or copied from a template. It names the relevant siblings (docs_templates, docs_fill) so an agent can distinguish this from docs_copy or docs_fill without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: use a gallery template name (pointing to docs_templates for the gallery), or any document URL/id to copy, and use docs_fill to populate a template afterwards. It gives strong positive guidance but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., when docs_copy is preferable).

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