create_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool creates a plaintext document, returns the new ID, and does not support encryption. It does not discuss side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but for a simple creation tool this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. Every phrase serves a purpose (action, return value, limitation). No superfluous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and a key limitation. It could be slightly improved by explicitly stating the plaintext nature of the content parameter, but it is largely 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 has 2 parameters (content, title) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'plaintext document' but does not explain what content or title should contain, nor any constraints. This adds little beyond the schema's type information.

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 clearly states 'Create a new plaintext document', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it cannot create encrypted documents, which is a unique constraint among the sibling tools.

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 explains when to use (to create a new plaintext document) and explicitly states a limitation ('Cannot create encrypted documents'), which implicitly suggests an alternative may be needed for encrypted documents. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tool names.

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