Create an Onshape document

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

No substantive annotations exist beyond the title, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that creation is performed, that free accounts are restricted to public documents, and that the result includes the new document id and default workspace id. It does not mention authentication requirements or broader side effects, but the disclosed result details go beyond the schema.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the free-account caveat directly affects a parameter choice, and the return-value note is placed at the end where it naturally completes the description.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent that the response contains the document id and default workspace id. The tool is simple, has only one required parameter, and the description covers the main call requirement. Minor gaps such as clarifying the default visibility for paid accounts are not critical.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds a small amount of parameter context by clarifying that free accounts must pass public=true, but this largely restates the schema's 'required on free accounts' note. It adds no meaningful semantics for name or description.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Create a document' — and adds context about free-account public visibility and the returned id/workspace id. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like onshape_list_documents, onshape_get_document, onshape_update_document, and onshape_delete_document.

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 implies its use case ('Create a document') and provides account-specific guidance for when public=true is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as onshape_update_document or onshape_create_part_studio, so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.

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