create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'creates' (implying a write operation) and returns success/failure messages, but lacks critical details like permission requirements, whether the document becomes active/selected after creation, or how it interacts with existing documents. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 (Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loads the core purpose. While efficient, the example could be more concise by omitting the explanatory sentence before the JSON block, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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?

For a single-parameter creation tool with an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basics adequately. However, given it's a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about side effects, error conditions, or interaction with the FreeCAD environment to be truly complete.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter ('name: The name of the document to create') and provides an example, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints like naming conventions, length limits, or uniqueness requirements that would be helpful for proper usage.

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 a new document') and target resource ('in FreeCAD'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_object' or 'list_documents', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_object' or 'list_documents'. It mentions the tool's basic function but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions that would help an agent choose correctly among siblings.

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