drive_create_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: creation is delegated to the Docs/Sheets/Slides app, and on a device lacking that app it redirects to the Play Store and fails with `app_missing` while creating nothing. That failure-without-side-effect detail is exactly what an agent needs. It stops short of stating permissions, whether the new file opens, or what is returned, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence is long but earns its space by explaining a real failure mode. The '(Create new > Google Docs...)' UI-menu aside is marginal padding but small.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must fully cover behavior; it explains the failure path well but says nothing about the success path — whether the new file opens, what identifier is returned, or which folder it inherits by default. Those are material gaps for a creation tool.

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% and both parameters are self-documenting, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only echoes the docs/sheets/slides enum already in `kind`. It adds no clarification about `path` defaulting or whether the parent folder must already exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Google Docs/Sheets/Slides file') and names the exact UI action it mirrors. This is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like drive_mkdir (folder), drive_upload, or drive_copy, which an agent can rule out from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the enumerated kinds, but the description never states when to prefer this over drive_upload, drive_copy, or drive_mkdir, nor any prerequisites. It spends its second sentence on a failure mode rather than on routing guidance.

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