Create a pad

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds valuable behavioral context: pads are ephemeral (lost on server restart, after 24h inactivity), and anyone with the URL can read/edit. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about data persistence and security implications.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action and return value. The second sentence clarifies the id behavior. The third sentence explains ephemerality and access. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns (URL), and important behavioral traits (ephemeral, public access). It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but the annotations (openWorldHint=true) and sibling tools provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. The description is reasonably complete for a creation tool.

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 parameters. The description adds meaning by stating parameters are optional, explaining the id generation behavior ('Without an id a random one is generated'), and noting the return of a shareable URL (not in schema). This provides additional semantic context beyond the schema alone.

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 pad, optionally with initial content and language, and returns a shareable URL. It distinguishes from siblings like get_document (read), set_document (update), and append_to_document (modify) by focusing on creation. The verb 'creates' and resource 'pad' are specific and 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 usage for creating new pads but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_document for updating). It provides no exclusion criteria or guidance on when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, the lack of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use reduces the score.

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