Create document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context: 'Risk class: medium (creates a new tracked document; no existing state mutated),' explains the generated document is validate_document-clean, and mentions the output shape and tracking features. It could be slightly more concise, but adds value beyond annotations.

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 sections: summary, usage, key parameters, return shape, example, and risk class. Every sentence adds value, though it is a bit long. A minor trim would make it more concise, but still effective.

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?

With 4 params, no enums, and an output schema, the description covers everything: parameter details, default behavior (viewBox synthesis), return shape references (OpenDocumentResult), risk class, and even an example. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 fully. It does: explains width/height are in user units (>0), viewBox is optional with format 'minx miny w h' and synthesized default, background is validated colour types with anti-injection. This adds essential meaning beyond 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?

The description explicitly states 'Create a blank, tracked working-copy document from scratch — NO source file required.' and distinguishes from siblings like open_document and set_document_svg, making the purpose very clear and specific.

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 provides a clear 'When to use' section: 'starting fresh authoring...when there is no SVG to open.' It also states when not to use: 'To open an EXISTING file use open_document; to set the whole SVG body afterwards use set_document_svg.' This gives explicit guidance with alternatives.

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