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

With annotations providing only false hints, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals that template stamping is a one-time copy, unmapped connectors are left as 'needs connection' rather than rejected, sharing delegates and produces a delegation summary, and it names the exact return shape. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 single paragraph is dense and front-loaded with the core definition, and virtually every clause contributes new information. It is long, but justified by the tool's complexity; a bulleted or sectioned layout would be easier to scan but this does not seriously hurt usability.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the response shape ({ toolbox, entries, delegation } with tbx_ id) and the delegation summary fields. It covers preconditions (use access on template, caller's own connections), side effects (delegation), and the relationship to toolbox.execute, making the definition complete for a complex create call.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter; the description adds meaningful cross-cutting semantics for template_id/connection_map (combinable stamping), entries (full validation), and shares (delegation summary and 'read it out before you share'). The extra meaning earns more than the baseline 3, though many parameter details remain correctly delegated to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a toolbox: a connection-bound, shareable bundle of tool references.' It explains two construction modes (template stamping and hand-written entries) and closes with an explicit contrast to toolbox.execute, so the agent can distinguish it from the main sibling that might be confused with it.

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 concrete when-to-use detail: stamping from template_id, adding entries, and granting shares at creation time. It explicitly says this is not a prerequisite for running tools the caller already has and points to toolbox.execute, but it does not spell out when to prefer create over toolbox.update/set_entries/share for existing toolboxes.

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