create_google_doc

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 mentions the return values (document ID and web link), which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required (e.g., Google Drive write access), whether creation is immediate or asynchronous, or error conditions (e.g., invalid parent folder). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (2 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, but an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action and return values, though it lacks behavioral details like permissions or error handling. The output schema likely documents return values, reducing the need for that in the description, but more context on usage would improve completeness.

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 50% (only 'title' has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain 'parent_folder_id' (e.g., what it defaults to or its format) or clarify 'title' constraints. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 blank Google Document') and the resource ('Google Document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_google_doc_from_markdown' (which creates from markdown) or 'create_folder' (which creates a folder). It specifies 'blank' to indicate no initial content, adding precision.

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_google_doc_from_markdown' or 'copy_file', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., Google Drive access). It only states what the tool does, without context for selection.

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