Create a Google Doc

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the auth/connection requirement (Settings > Connectors > Google Drive, one connection covers all three) and the return payload (document id + URL), neither of which the annotations provide. No contradiction with the write-creating-new semantics.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded in sentence one, the return value in sentence two, and the prerequisite in sentence three. Every sentence earns its place, and the example list is compact but illustrative.

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 2-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs is missing: inputs are schema-documented, the return value is stated (important since there is no output schema), the auth prerequisite is explicit, and non-idempotency is covered by annotations. The description is fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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% — both `text` ('body text to insert') and `title` ('document title') are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value: the word 'optional' in 'optional body text' (consistent with 0 required params) and content-type examples for the body. It doesn't go beyond the schema in any substantive way.

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 ('Create'), resource ('a new Google Doc in the user's Drive'), and inputs ('title + optional body text'), with concrete content examples (ad copy, creative brief, report). The qualifier 'new' plus the stated return of 'document id + URL' clearly distinguishes it from the doc-modification siblings (append_to_doc, update_doc, read_doc) without needing to inspect those 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 implies usage through content-type examples and states an explicit prerequisite ('Needs Google Drive connected...'). However, it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions — e.g., it doesn't say 'use append_to_doc for existing docs' or 'use create_sheet for spreadsheets' — leaving the actual selection rule ambiguous given the large sibling list.

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