gws.docs.create

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the document is 'empty' (except optional initial_text), 'owned by the account', and 'never modifies existing content'. The annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-read-only, but the description clarifies ownership and side effects. No contradiction with 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 contains redundancy: the second sentence ('Creates a new, empty document...') repeats information already stated in the first sentence about creating and returning ID and URL. This could be tightened into a single sentence, though the overall length is not excessive.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it creates, the optional initial text, the return value (ID and URL), and the safety guarantee (never modifies existing content). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already well-described in the schema. The description adds minor value by explicitly mentioning initial_text is inserted at the start of the body, but this is largely redundant with the schema definition. No significant new meaning is added.

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 new Google Doc, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gws.docs.insert_text and gws.docs.replace_text by emphasizing it never modifies existing content, making it the go-to tool for creating new documents.

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 documents and mentions it never modifies existing content, which helps differentiate from modification tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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