basecamp_create_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without revealing effects such as whether the operation requires specific permissions, whether a duplicate title is allowed, whether the document is immediately visible, or what the API response contains. For a mutating tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single, clear sentence that states the action and object without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, providing the core purpose in a scannable format. No unnecessary details dilute the message.

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?

For a tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is overly sparse. It fails to mention that a project must exist, that the vault must belong to the project, or what the tool returns after creation. The description alone would not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly without relying on external knowledge.

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 schema description coverage is 50%; title and content have descriptions, but vault_id and project_id do not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'in the vault', which hints at vault_id but leaves project_id unexplained. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, making it hard for an agent to understand why both IDs are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new document') with a location ('in the vault'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_document or create_message. The phrase 'new document' implies a distinct Basecamp resource type, and 'vault' disambiguates from other containers.

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 gives a clear but implied usage context: you use this when you want to create a document in a vault. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_message, create_todo, or create_upload, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the need for a valid project_id and vault_id. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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