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

The description says the tool 'verwirft die angezeigte Entwurfsversion' (discards the displayed draft version), which is a destructive action, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction. While the description usefully notes that releasing makes the template visible to sending and agents, the discard semantics conflict with the structured hint.

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 relatively short and front-loads the key scope and action before the effect. The main inefficiency is the full German/English duplication, which is understandable for a bilingual UI context but slightly redundant for an agent.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description provides enough core context: scope, action, and release effect. However, it leaves the discard side effects unclear and omits any return/value expectations, and the destructiveHint contradiction creates an incomplete behavioral picture.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'release or discard' maps to the decision enum, and 'displayed draft version' maps to versionId. However, templateId is only inferable from the tool name, and the description gives no guidance on how to obtain or validate the IDs.

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 specific action pair, 'releases or discards the displayed draft version,' on a specific resource and clearly restricts it to 'the interactive template card only.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like template_release and template_draft_discard by adding the card/button context.

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 explicitly says this is 'nur fuer die interaktive Vorlagen-Karte' and is to be used 'nachdem der Mensch auf der Karte gedrueckt hat,' which gives clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope restriction is strong.

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