create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a document but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing documents, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The return message is mentioned but not detailed, leaving behavioral context incomplete 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 uses only essential sentences. However, the example could be more concise by omitting the explanatory sentence, as the JSON snippet alone suffices.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks depth. It doesn't explain interactions with sibling tools, error conditions, or FreeCAD-specific context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 adds minimal semantics for the single parameter 'name', stating it's 'The name of the document to create'. With 0% schema description coverage, this provides basic context but doesn't elaborate on constraints like length, allowed characters, or uniqueness. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of detailed parameter documentation.

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 resource ('in FreeCAD'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_object' or 'edit_object', which might also create or modify documents in FreeCAD.

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 'edit_object'. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this specific document creation tool is preferred over other creation-related tools in the server.

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