word_create

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action without detailing what happens (e.g., the file location, naming convention, or whether it opens in an application). No mention of side effects or requirements.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and earns its place by conveying the essential action efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It minimally informs the agent of the action but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a file ID or success indicator). The description is adequate for a simple creation but lacks completeness for agent decision-making.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them (none). According to guidelines, 0 parameters warrant a baseline score of 4, as the description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond an empty 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new Word document', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'word_append' and 'word_read', which modify or read existing documents.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'word_append' for modifying an existing document or other creation tools like 'excel_create'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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