Create a document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — publish defaults to false and drafts are visible only to the author — but omits that repeat calls create duplicates (non-idempotent) and says nothing about required permissions for container placement.

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?

Two compact sentences front-loaded with the purpose, then Args and Returns in a scannable structure. Every clause carries information, though the 'Args:'/'Returns:' shorthand is terse and the inline publish note is slightly crammed.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states that the created document is returned, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the unexplained collectionId/parentDocumentId placement semantics for a mutation tool, which an agent likely needs to call it right.

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 60%, and the description names all five parameters plus the required flag and the Markdown format for text. However, collectionId and parentDocumentId are named with no explanation of what they control or whether they interact, so the description only partially compensates for the uncovered schema fields.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (document), which cleanly separates it from outline_create_collection and outline_create_comment without extra work. It is clear but never explicitly routes the agent or names an alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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 says nothing about when to use this versus outline_update_document, outline_move_document, or outline_get_document. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer the create-vs-update distinction entirely from the tool name.

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