apple_textedit_create

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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious context the annotations don't: the document is unsaved, a window may appear as a side effect, a name is returned, and saving must be done explicitly. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the caveats and chaining advice. 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: it is unsaved, a window may appear, the returned name is needed downstream, and saving is a separate step. Only the meaning of the 'text' parameter is missing.

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 single 'text' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and it does not — it never mentions that text sets the initial document content or what the default empty value implies. With low coverage and no compensation, this is a real gap for callers deciding whether to pass content at creation.

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 an unsaved TextEdit document'), and the 'unsaved' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling apple_textedit_open, which presumably opens an existing file. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

'Use the returned name for subsequent operations; save explicitly' gives real workflow guidance for chaining and persistence. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as apple_textedit_open or the other app 'create' tools, so usage selection is only implied.

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