create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a separate writing model handles structure/wording and that a fact-check loop with the edit tool follows. However, it does not clarify whether the tool writes to a file or returns content, nor does it mention side effects or permissions, leaving ambiguity in the output 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 composed of four purposeful sentences, each conveying essential workflow instructions. It is slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, prerequisite, constraint, and follow-up step without fluff.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the high-level workflow and constraints well. However, it fails to describe the exact return value or delivery mechanism of the document, which is a significant gap for a 'create' tool. The missing output detail leaves the agent uncertain about what to do with the result.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful semantics by instructing the agent to supply 'facts' and 'structured material' and explicitly prohibiting pasting a draft, which directly clarifies how parameters like context and notes should be populated. This goes beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool writes a software document (plan, RFC, design doc, README, guide, ADR) from supplied facts, giving a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling edit tool by specifying that corrections are sent through edit, making its unique role clear.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: investigate the repository first and pass structured material, while also giving when-not-to-use instructions: do not draft prose yourself or paste a draft. It also points to the edit tool as the alternative for corrections, naming the sibling explicitly.

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