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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world); the description adds the in-place mutation semantics, that content is preserved and stays editable, the publish-visibility consequence of `system` scope, and permission gating. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation and are not derivable from the 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the in-place nature comes first, then discoverability, then scope/permission constraints. Every clause carries a distinct fact (no copy, editable, list visibility, scope gating, key-type exclusion) with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, reversibility implications (content preserved), visibility changes, auth requirements, and key-scope exclusions. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it identifies the `description` field as the model's FINANCE.md usage guide that is kept when omitted, and characterizes what `system` scope actually does (curated public catalog). The rest largely restates the enum descriptions.

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 ('promotes a model ... into a reusable template in place') and immediately distinguishes itself from copy-based alternatives by clarifying no copy is made and the model stays editable. The mention of `layerz_list_templates` gives an agent a concrete downstream effect to recognize.

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?

Explains the conditions that select each scope: `user` = private and Pro-gated, `system` = curated catalog and admin-only, plus an explicit exclusion ('Not advertised to model-scoped or read-only keys'). It stops short of naming when to promote in place versus building a separate template from a blueprint, so it is strong context rather than full alternative routing.

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