create_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it covers the key mutation ('create'), the scope ('active team'), and the result (returns ID). It does not discuss permissions, persistence details, or edge cases, but for a straightforward file-creation action the main behavior is transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action, scope, and return value; the second gives the essential next step. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 low-complexity create tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is complete enough: it states the return value (file ID), clarifies that the file is created but not automatically opened, and points to the follow-up tool. No output schema or extra return-value explanation is needed.

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?

Both parameters, name and cloneFileId, are already fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but this is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a concrete resource ('new Paper file'), and the scope ('user's active team'), and it names the returned value (file ID). It also distinguishes itself from open_file by specifying the follow-up call. Sibling tools like create_page and create_artboard target different object types, so the file-level purpose is clear.

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?

It gives useful workflow context: after creating a file, call open_file with the returned ID. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose create_file over sibling creation tools or when not to use it, so selection guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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