New Document

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds concrete behavior by stating that a document is created, made active, and that the return value is {doc: <name>}. This explains side effects that matter to orchestration, such as changing the active document context.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the operation and include the return contract with no filler or redundancy. Every part of the description 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 single-optional-parameter creation tool, the description covers the action, the active-document side effect, and the return format. No output schema exists, so including the return shape in the description is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description carries more responsibility for the optional name parameter. It indirectly defines the parameter through 'Returns {doc: <name>}', confirming that name becomes the document's name, but it does not explain uniqueness, naming rules, or what happens when omitted.

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 the specific action 'Create a new FreeCAD document' with a clear resource and also notes it will 'make it active'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_document, list_documents, and set_active_document without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 clearly implies the use case: create a fresh document and activate it for subsequent operations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the word 'new' plus the active-document behavior provides enough contextual guidance.

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