create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action without any mention of side effects, permissions, validation, or return values. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient to inform the agent about consequences or prerequisites.

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, well-structured sentence that states the purpose and provides examples without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Створення') and immediately specifies the domain (1С/BAS), making it easy to grasp.

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 description covers the basic purpose and gives parameter examples, but it lacks important context for a create operation: it does not mention that the document is not automatically posted, nor does it describe any return value or required fields within the 'fields' object. Given the presence of sibling post_document, this omission may lead to incomplete agent behavior.

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 already provides extensive descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of valid document_name values (e.g., ЗаказКлиента) and clarifying that fields includes tabular parts, which slightly enhances meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not significantly add new semantic detail.

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's function with a specific verb ('Створення' - creating) and resource ('нового документа' - new document), and provides concrete examples (СчетНаОплатуПокупателю, ЗаказКлиента). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_catalog_element, which target catalog elements rather than 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 gives clear context that this is for creating documents, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like post_document, which is a related sibling. The lack of exclusions or alternative options leaves room for ambiguity in distinguishing between creating and posting documents.

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