apple_numbers_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: the document is unsaved, it may show a window, and saving must be explicit. It does not address failure modes or permissions, but the added behavioral detail is strong.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded and useful. The description covers purpose, side effect, and follow-up workflow with no wasted words.

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 simple create tool, the description adequately covers purpose, UI side effect, return-name usage, and explicit save. However, it omits any explanation of the templateName parameter and does not mention return structure beyond the returned name, leaving a clear gap despite the simple surface.

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?

There is one parameter, templateName, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions templates or explains this parameter. Because the schema does not document it, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 (create) and resource (unsaved Numbers document). The 'unsaved' qualifier and instruction to 'save explicitly' distinguish it from apple_numbers_open and apple_numbers_save without requiring the 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?

Gives clear workflow context: use the returned name for subsequent operations and save explicitly. This tells the agent how the create step fits with later save/close calls. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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