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 states the tool creates a document but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether the document is saved or draft, error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a structured 'Args' section that efficiently explains parameters with an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, leaving room for improvement in completeness for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by explaining 'doctype' as 'ERPNext DocType name' and providing an example JSON string for 'data', clarifying the expected format beyond the bare schema. This effectively documents both parameters, though it could benefit from more detail on valid doctypes or data constraints.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new document'), specifying it's for ERPNext DocTypes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'make_mapped_doc' or 'submit_document', which also involve document creation or processing, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'make_mapped_doc' or 'submit_document'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, offering only basic functional information without strategic direction.

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