swapcard_create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'create', which implies a mutation, but does not mention permissions required, reversibility, idempotency, or any side effects. It lacks transparency about what happens on creation or any constraints.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the primary purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain return values, parameter formats, or the actionType enum, leaving the agent with insufficient information to confidently invoke the tool. The optional event scoping is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It only hints at community-level (communityId) and optional event scoping (eventId) but does not explicitly name or describe any of the six parameters, including the required name, url, and the actionType enum. This provides no added value 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 (create) and the resource (community-level document), and distinguishes it from the sibling create_event_document by noting the community-level scope with optional event scoping. It conveys the core purpose effectively, though it could be more specific about what 'community-level' means or what document types are supported.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies community-level vs event-level scope but does not explicitize when to choose this over swapcard_create_event_document or when to use update_document. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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