create_document

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutating operation ('Create') and states the return type ('JSON string'), but it does not mention authentication requirements, validation behavior, whether the operation can partially fail, or side effects beyond creating a document. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections, no redundant prose, and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and then packs parameter semantics into a compact, scannable list.

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?

All five parameters are documented with meanings, requiredness, and defaults, and the return type is stated as a JSON string. The description is sufficient for constructing a valid callache. It loses a point only because it does not mention the relationship to the JWT-based sibling tools or any authentication prerequisites, which would help an agent fully understand the invocation context.

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 0% description coverage, so the Args section fully compensates. It explains each parameter's meaning: organization_id is an Organization ID, content is 'Document content as HTML', document_folder_id is an optional placement folder, and public controls visibility with a default. It also marks required parameters, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the action and resource: 'Create a new document in IT Glue.' It uses a specific verb plus resource and is readily distinguishable from get_document, update_document, delete_document, and search_documents. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling create_document_jwt, which likely performs a similar creation operation with different authentication.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_document_jwt or update_document. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or hints about the intended context (e.g., authenticated session vs. JWT-based flow), leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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