sw_new_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing that the new document becomes active, but it does not say what happens to the previously active document, whether the result is unsaved, or which template is used.

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?

One compact sentence with the action and the key side effect ('make it active') front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. It still lacks the return value (document name/path or handle) an agent would need to chain follow-up calls such as sw_create_sketch, and offers no disambiguation from the drawing-creation siblings.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'kind' parameter. It only restates the enum values ('part, assembly or drawing') and adds no meaning about default template selection or what an empty document of each kind contains, so it does not 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 gives a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('new, empty part, assembly or drawing') and the template source, which is more than the name alone conveys. It does not, however, distinguish this from near-siblings such as sw_create_drawing, sw_open, or sw_generate_part, all of which could plausibly be reached for when starting a document.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus sw_open (open an existing file) or sw_create_drawing (create a drawing), nor any prerequisite or precondition. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'from the default template'.

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