Create Doc

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

Although annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral context about the document body starting at index 1 and total length 2, which helps the agent understand the internal structure. It also mentions the optional content insertion but does not disclose side effects like authentication or rate limits, though these are less critical for a creation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear topic sentence followed by technical details and a recommended workflow. It is slightly verbose due to the explicit indices and workflow steps, but every sentence contributes useful information, and the main purpose appears first. No redundant phrasing.

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 is highly complete for a creation tool: it states the primary function, optional content insertion, initial document structure, and a robust follow-up workflow (batch_update_doc + inspect_doc_structure). With an output schema present, it does not need to explain return values. The description covers both immediate constraints and recommended next steps, making it self-sufficient.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate on them. However, the description adds some context by explaining that content is 'optional initial plain text content' and gives structural details about how the document is initialized, but this is more about behavior than parameter semantics. Thus, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Creates a new Google Doc and optionally inserts initial content,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_update_doc, inspect_doc_structure, and get_doc_content by focusing on the creation action and its unique initial-state details.

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 explicitly provides a workflow: use create_doc for creation, then use batch_update_doc with insert_text and end_of_segment=true to append content, and finally inspect_doc_structure before formatting. This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives and how to chain subsequent steps.

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