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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), so the description earns credit for adding the required pm_templates:write scope and clarifying that templates are unbound to a site/asset. It stops short of disclosing uniqueness/conflict behavior on the required unique-per-tenant title.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the domain clarification and the auth requirement. No redundancy and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 15-parameter creation tool with full schema documentation and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, domain model, and permissions adequately. The only gap is the return value of a create call, which is minor given no output schema is declared.

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 100% with rich per-field descriptions (including the PUBLISHED form-template caveat and CUSTOM interval rule), so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented, which is the baseline 3 case.

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+resource ("Create a new PM template") and then distinguishes the resource semantically: reusable PM definitions not linked to a site/asset that seed new PM schedules. This lets an agent separate it from create_pm_schedule and create_compliance_pm_schedule without opening any schema.

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 explains what a template is and its downstream relationship to PM schedules, which implies when it is useful, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus create_pm_schedule or notes any preconditions beyond scope. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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