google_docs_createCreate a new Google Docs document by providing a title. This tool generates a blank document ready for editing or sharing.
Create a new Google Docs document with a title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Document title. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core side effect: a new document is created. However, it omits account-selection behavior, default storage location, permissions, and what is returned, leaving the behavioral disclosure thin but not misleading.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the action and object immediately. Every word contributes to the core meaning and there is no boilerplate or unnecessary elaboration.
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 is simple and the schema fully covers both parameters, so the input side is adequately specified. However, there is no output schema and the description fails to explain what is returned after creation (e.g., document ID or URL) or how the optional `account` parameter is resolved. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to use 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 the schema already documents both `title` and `account`; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds no new detail about the `account` parameter and only restates that a document has a title. No additional parameter semantics are introduced beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Google Docs document.' It clearly communicates the deliverable and distinguishes this tool from sibling creation tools like google_sheets_create or google_slides_create. The word 'new' also makes the creation semantics unambiguous.
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 the usage context—use this when a brand-new Google Docs document is needed—but it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. There is no guidance about when to use this instead of google_docs_batch_update or google_sheets_create, so the agent must infer the scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.