create_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and uses it well: it discloses refusal to overwrite, automatic parent-directory creation, and the blank nature of the file. It does not mention whether the file becomes active in an open Word session, but the most important safety and side-effect behaviors are covered.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action leads, followed by overwrite refusal and the alternative, then the downstream workflow. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity, two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, exclusions, side effects, and next steps. It names the relevant sibling for overwriting and the population tools, giving an agent enough to invoke and continue correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains title as an optional core property and implies file_path is the destination .docx path through the tool's stated purpose. Some detail is left implicit, but the two parameters are simple and adequately contextualized.

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?

Specific verb and resource: creates a new blank .docx file, optionally setting the title core property. It distinguishes itself from copy_document by explicitly stating it refuses to overwrite, and from population tools by describing them as follow-up actions.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: for creating new blank files, not overwriting. It explicitly names copy_document with overwrite=True as the alternative, and directs the agent to use insert_paragraphs, create_table, define_style, etc. afterward, providing both exclusion and workflow context.

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