Create Google Document

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return structure (documentId, title, revisionId) and providing examples of creating empty versus content-bearing documents. It does not contradict annotations.

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 and concise: a one-sentence summary, a clear argument list, a return type, and practical examples. Every section contributes directly to understanding how to use the tool, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity and the rich schema coverage, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It includes parameter details and return format. However, it omits any mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives (like docs_batch_update) or any side effects (e.g., the document appears in Drive), which would make it fully complete.

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%, and the description lists both parameters with explanations that mirror the schema nearly verbatim. It adds some value through usage examples, but the parameter semantics are already fully captured by the schema, so the description provides no significant new meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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's purpose: 'Create a new Google Doc with an optional initial body.' This uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Google Doc'), and it distinguishes from siblings like docs_get_document (read) and docs_batch_update (modify), as well as sheets_create_spreadsheet (different resource type).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a new document, with or without content) through the summary and examples. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus other sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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