Create Document with Properties

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

Annotations include openWorldHint: true, indicating side effects. The description details the two-step workflow, including that it writes properties using the same logic as write_property. It adds context beyond annotations by explaining the workflow and return of structured payload.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then numbered steps, then usage guidance. No wasted words, each sentence contributes meaning.

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 has moderate complexity (5 params, nested objects, workflow). The description covers the workflow and parameter roles adequately. No output schema, but it mentions the return format implicitly. Slightly incomplete on return specifics but acceptable.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter roles in the workflow, such as sourcePath for reading and aiGeneratedProperties for the second call, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: starting and completing a two-step workflow for AI-generated frontmatter properties. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like write_property and generate_property by describing a compound workflow.

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 advises when to use the tool: when an AI agent should orchestrate analysis and write in a consistent workflow. It implies but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though it references the same write logic as write_property.

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