Create a new document on the filesystem by specifying a filename and its content.
Create a new document with the given content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | Filename for the new document (e.g. notes.txt) | |
| content | Yes | Content of the document |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does not mention whether the tool overwrites an existing document, whether permissions from allow_path are required, or any other behavioral consequences of creating a document.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no unnecessary detail or clutter, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is simple and parameter schema is complete, but the description omits important contextual behavior such as handling existing doc_ids or interaction with allow_path. This is enough for basic usage but not fully complete for edge cases.
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 input schema already provides full coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is already documented in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (create), the resource (document), and the scope (new), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_doc_contents and delete_doc. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using edit_doc_contents for existing documents or what happens if the doc_id already exists. The description only states the basic action without usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.