fusion_new_document

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavior: the call is refused while any document is open unless confirm=true, and it warns about stray documents piling up. It discloses the guard and the side-effect of creating extra documents beyond what annotations cover, giving a complete picture of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise guidance on when not to call and when to set confirm. Every sentence earns its place: the warning about stray documents, the guard explanation, and the alternative. It is structured logically and is not verbose.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, when not to, the confirm flag semantics, and the guard. It also mentions the alternative and the consequence of misuse. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the confirm parameter in detail: when to set true (user explicitly asked, or nothing open), when it is a no-op, and the refusal condition if confirm=false with an existing document. This goes well beyond the bare boolean schema and fully clarifies 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a NEW empty Fusion design document.' It clearly differentiates itself from fusion_create_component by urging the agent NOT to call it when a document is already open, pointing to the alternative. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer NOT calling this' and explains when to use it (user explicitly asked for a new document/project, or nothing is open). It also names the alternative (fusion_create_component) and explains the guard for confirm=true versus false. There is no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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