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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the saved version is immutable, the template must be owned, and the call consumes no AI credits (relevant given the many credit-consuming siblings).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the precondition, then the cost note. No filler, though the sentences are terse enough that some parameter context could have been added at little cost.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts (immutability, ownership, no credit cost) and the read-first workflow. It remains thin on what the parameters carry and what a saved version looks like, but the absence of an output schema excuses return-value detail.

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 only 20% across 5 parameters (page, sizes, schema, source, template_id), and the description explains none of them — not what 'source' contains, what 'page'/'sizes' control, or how 'schema' is used. With such low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ('Save a new immutable version of an owned template'), and the 'version' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling save_template and publish_template. However, it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Provides one real workflow precondition ('Read the current version first'), which tells the agent to fetch the current version before saving. It does not say when to use this versus save_template, publish_template, or edit_template, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage is only partially guided.

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