create_document_jwt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the session-auth mechanism (cookies + XSRF token), the two-step creation process, the reason the internal web API is needed, and the error condition for an expired/missing session. This goes well beyond a generic 'create' description.

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 relatively long but well-structured with a rationale, two-step process, error condition, args list, and return type. Each section earns its place given the tool's complexityasi. It could be tightened slightly, but nothing is fluff.

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 create operation with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, this description is nearly complete: it covers authentication, process, error handling, all parameters, and the return format. It doesn't explain how to obtain organization_id or document_folder_id, but those are discoverable through sibling tools and the output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all five parameters with meaningful one-line explanations: content is HTML, public controls visibility, and document_folder_id places the document. It adds useful semantics beyond bare schema names, though organization_id could have been elaborated further.

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, resource, and distinguishing mechanism: 'Create a new document with content using session authentication.' It explicitly explains why this tool is needed ('IT Glue's public API doesn't persist document content'), clearly separating it from siblings like create_document and update_document_jwt.

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 clearly communicates when this tool is required: whenever document content must persist through session authentication. It also explains the prerequisite of a valid cached session and the error behavior if that prerequisite is missing warning. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus create_document.

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