create_document_from_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains what properties are preserved (position, font size, color, radius, shadow, gradient, stacking order) and flags the 'notes' field reporting what failed to convert — valuable behavioral context. It still doesn't state permissions or size/rate limits, keeping it below 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 purpose, then conversion mechanics, then return values and workflow. Dense but every sentence conveys a distinct fact; slightly long but no clear filler to cut.

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?

Even without an output schema, it describes the return payload (documentId, per-page ids and sizes, notes, optional thumbnail) and the follow-up tool chain, plus a guide reference for HTML authoring. An agent has everything needed to call and act on the result.

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 100%, so all six parameters (html, width, height, htmlPath, previews, includeDocument) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only scattered hints (default thumbnail) without new syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: converts HTML/CSS web pages into an editable freeform canvas document (v44). The 'template can't do it' framing and detailed conversion mechanics (shapes, text boxes, images, SVG nodes, CSS z-index stacking) clearly differentiate it from sibling creators like create_document_from_template and create_document_from_content.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use ('适合模板排不出来的版式'), names the downstream workflow (check_document → apply_actions → render_document → open_in_editor), and points to get_guide("html-import") for HTML authoring details. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling to use when a template does fit, so it stops just short of full alternative routing.

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