create_docqa_assistant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It marks the tool as a mutation with '[mutation]', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, side effects (e.g., duplicate names), or rate limits. The only behavior mentioned is that file uploads happen later, which is minimal.

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, with a single sentence and a mutation tag. The purpose is front-loaded ('Crear asistente Doc Q&A'). However, it could be more structured by separating the creation action from the follow-up note about uploading files.

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 12 parameters and no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the assistant ID or status). Given the complexity and the presence of many sibling tools, the description should provide more context about the creation process and expected result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain why certain parameters are important or how they affect behavior. For example, it does not mention that 'display_name' is required or that 'prompt' is optional. No added value.

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 the action ('Crear') and the resource ('asistente Doc Q&A'). It distinguishes from siblings like update_docqa_assistant and delete_docqa_assistant by focusing on creation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other create tools like create_agent or create_calendar_event, so sibling differentiation is lacking.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the creation action and a post-creation step (uploading files), but does not explain prerequisites, use cases, or when to avoid it. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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