m3_create_internal_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: 'Async import queue', signaling that creation is asynchronous and queued. However, it does not explain what the agent should expect after invoking, such as confirmation behavior, error handling, or side effects.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second fragment, 'Async import queue', is structurally awkward but conveys key behavior without waste. It earns its place despite being terse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained. It does not define what an internal document is, what 'controlling variables' means, how the async queue affects the caller, or what a successful invocation returns. The agent would still have significant uncertainty after reading it.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the vague phrase 'controlling variables'. It does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (documentNumber and variableSymbol).

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 core action: 'Create an internal document', which clearly identifies the resource and operation. The added phrase 'with controlling variables' gives some domain context but is vague about what those variables are. It is distinct enough from siblings like m3_internal_documents and m3_delete_internal_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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Async import queue' hints at a behavioral context, but there is no mention of when this create tool is preferred over the many other m3_create_* tools or what disqualifies it.

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