inkbolt_document_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/idempotent, and the description usefully adds that the result is a snapshot and that nothing is written to disk, resolving the tension implied by the verb "Create". It still says nothing about session scope, required permissions, or what the returned snapshot handle enables, keeping it out of 5 territory. No genuine contradiction with annotations, since the tool is explicitly non-persisting.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the create semantics come first and the non-persistence caveat second. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, but for a 7-param tool with 14% schema coverage the description omits parameter meaning, session/id behavior, and any usage context. It is not complete enough for an agent to call this correctly without opening the schema.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden and does not deliver: it never explains what `id` is (caller-supplied handle? generated?), the pixel units or bounds for width/height, resolution_ppi, or resource_profile. Only the `kind` enum is gestured at via "vector or raster".

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 and resource ("Create an empty ... document") plus salient attributes (editable, vector/raster, sRGB), so an agent can distinguish it from document_edit, document_render, or document_inspect. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, which a 5 would require.

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 tool versus alternatives such as session_create or asset_import, and no preconditions. "Returns a snapshot; does not save a file" describes outcome, not usage context, so the agent is left to infer when a document must be created.

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