office_create_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the file must not pre-exist, that format is inferred from the extension, how title behaves differently per format (heading, title slide, or ignored for spreadsheets), and the 31-char sheet_name limit. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens on error, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then organizes per-parameter constraints compactly with zero filler sentences. Every clause carries a constraint or a handoff instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers creation semantics, format inference, and per-param constraints for a no-annotation mutation tool. The only real gap is the absence of permission/auth or failure-mode context, which is minor given the rest.

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, and it does for all three parameters: path (workspace-relative, allowed extensions, must not exist), title (per-format behavior, ignored for spreadsheets), and sheet_name (renames first xlsx/ods sheet, max 31 chars). This adds meaning well beyond the bare string types in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an empty new office document in the workspace') and implicitly scopes itself against the sibling edit tools by noting 'After creation, edit the file with the other office_* tools.' An agent can distinguish this creation tool from office_replace_tool/office_append_tool without opening any schema.

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?

Clear context: use this to make a brand-new empty file, then hand off to the other office_* tools for editing, and the precondition 'the file must not exist yet' is an explicit exclusion. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when the file already exists (read/replace), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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