create_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well by disclosing the interactive prompt, the API-key-first then JWT fallback for folder enumeration, and the prompt's accepted input forms. It also explains the root-creation behavior for skip_folder_prompt. It does not describe return values or error cases, but the core side-effect behavior is transparent.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by prompt behavior, fallback ordering, and the root-creation escape hatch. The length is justified by the complexity of the folder-picking behavior, with no redundant or promotional language.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the nontrivial invocation details an agent needs: the required container context, the interactive prompt condition, the enumeration fallback chain, and the way to bypass prompting. It is complete enough to select and call the tool correctly without opening the schema.

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 schema already documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the description did not need to restate them. It adds genuine value by explaining how document_folder_id interacts with the folder prompt and precisely what skip_folder_prompt=true does.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new document in IT Glue for an organization'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling section/file tools. It also reveals the target container (organization), so an agent can separate it from search/get/list document tools at a glance.

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 gives explicit conditional instructions: if neither document_folder_id nor skip_folder_prompt is supplied, the agent should expect a folder prompt, and it states the escape hatch of skip_folder_prompt=true. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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