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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for adding the auth-scope behavior and its remediation path, which structured fields do not convey. It stops short of explaining what happens to the source design or whether publishing is reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then the error path. The scope-error sentence is somewhat verbose but is genuinely actionable rather than 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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return ('Returns the created brand template details'), and a known failure mode. The annotation set already carries the safety profile, so little is missing.

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%, and both design_id and user_intent are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Publishes a Canva design as a brand template') plus the effect ('making it reusable across the organization'), which is concrete and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling create-brand-template-draft, so an agent must infer that publishing differs from drafting.

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 gives a conditional error-recovery path (the 'Missing scopes' handling) but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over create-brand-template-draft or other template tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'publish'.

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