Doco Create Document

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the accepted content formats (markdown, tiptap-json, html) and the two supported payload shapes (content or document). It does not contradict annotations.

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 entire guidance is one compact, front-loaded sentence: primary purpose first, then the optional content detail. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given an output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by hinting that folder_id/knowledge_base_id scope the creation and that idempotency_key prevents duplicate retries, but those are already visible in 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the nested content object's format enum and alternative inner fields, which the schema leaves as a generic additionalProperties object.

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 ('新建文档' / create a new document) and adds the valuable capability of injecting initial content with supported formats. It is not a tautology, and the create action clearly separates it from update/get siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when a new document must be created, optionally with initial body content. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives such as doco_update_document for existing documents, so an agent must infer routing.

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