Create a Google Doc

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the required Drive connection, noting that one connection covers Drive, Sheets, and Docs, and stating that the tool returns the document id and URL. This adds behavioral context (prerequisites, output) that annotations do not provide. No contradiction with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) is present.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action and scope, includes valuable examples, and tucks the prerequisite and return-value information into a compact second sentence. Every word 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 two-parameter creation tool, the description covers the core essentials: what, examples, return value, and prerequisites. It lacks explicit clarification on whether a title is mandatory (schema has no required parameters, but the description implies title is needed), which would be a minor gap. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to invoke successfully.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters (text as 'body text to insert', title as 'document title') with 100% coverage. The description adds minor clarification by restating that title is for the document title and text is optional body text, but it doesn't introduce new parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb-resource pair ('Create a new Google Doc') with clear scope (in the user's Drive) and provides concrete examples (export ad copy, creative brief, report). It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like append_to_doc, read_doc, and update_doc, which handle different operations on existing docs.

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 makes the primary use case explicit by describing what the tool accomplishes and giving example scenarios. While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for editing existing docs), the clear scoping to 'new' docs implicitly differentiates it from update/append tools, and the prerequisite note about Drive connection adds practical guidance.

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