create_google_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a document (a mutation), but it omits critical behavioral details like required authentication, whether it overwrites an existing doc with the same title, potential side effects on Google Drive, or error conditions. This is insufficient transparency for a creation 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 a single concise sentence that clearly communicates the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has moderate complexity with an output schema and related sibling tools. The description is minimal but leaves ambiguity: it says 'previously generated documentation content' yet the schema mentions repo_path 'will be analyzed on-the-fly', implying possible contradiction about the source. It also lacks explicit prerequisite context (e.g., run generate_project_documentation first). This is incomplete but not severely so.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as how repo_path is used or what share_with does. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 tool creates a formatted Google Doc from previously generated content, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_project_documentation (which generates content) and update_google_doc (which updates an existing doc).

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 implies when to use the tool: after documentation has been generated, as indicated by 'from previously generated documentation content'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using update_google_doc for edits or export_markdown for non-Google formats.

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