word_create_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and file path but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether the directory must exist, or any permission requirements. It also does not mention any side effects or the nature of the return value (though an output schema exists). For a file-creation tool, this 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 extremely concise, with a single opening sentence and a two-line arg list. It contains no redundant phrasing or filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are presented efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it omits critical behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, error conditions (e.g., invalid path), and whether the document is saved immediately. This could lead an agent to assume default behaviors that may not hold. While not severely incomplete, it leaves important gaps for a file-mutating operation.

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 has no descriptions for its parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by providing concise but meaningful explanations: 'file_path: Path where the document will be saved.' and 'title: Optional title text.' This adds semantic value beyond the bare types in the schema, clarifying the purpose of each parameter. Both parameters are covered.

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 clear verb 'Create' and a specific resource 'new empty Word document (.docx)' with an optional title. It explicitly distinguishes this from siblings like word_append_paragraph or word_replace_text by focusing on creation of a new file. The file type (.docx) and emptiness are specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to create a new empty Word document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., word_append_paragraph, word_read_paragraphs) makes the use case obvious. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer it is for new document creation only.

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