create_document

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the non-obvious refusal-to-overwrite behavior, automatic parent-directory creation, and that title is a core property rather than a filename. It doesn't cover error handling for invalid paths, but the critical side effects and constraints are clearly stated.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, overwrite exception with alternative, directory side-effect, post-creation workflow, and pack routing. The central purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema available, the description covers purpose, behavior, exceptions, and workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or decide to use it is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to title by identifying it as a core property, and implies file_path is the destination of the new file via the creation verb. However, it never explicitly defines path expectations (e.g., extension requirements, absolute vs relative), leaving some ambiguity that a high-coverage schema would have resolved.

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 blank .docx file' with an optional title core property. It differentiates itself from copy_document by explicitly calling out the overwrite refusal, and from template-driven builders by pointing to the assembly pack, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings at a glance.

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?

Gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Refuses to overwrite an existing file (use copy_document with overwrite=True for that)' names the exact alternative and condition. It also describes the follow-up workflow with insert_paragraphs, create_table, define_style, and routes template-driven builds to the assembly pack, making the decision context fully explicit.

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