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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the definition is persisted as the template's first version, a creator must be recorded, and custom terms can be attached. It doesn't cover failure modes or name-uniqueness behavior, keeping it below 5.

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, then versioning behavior, then parameter requirements. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the required creator and optional term attachment. It leaves minor gaps such as org-scoping and validation/failure conditions, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents every field. The description reinforces the creator requirement and the custom_term_id attachment behavior but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ("Create") plus resource ("custom template") and the input method ("from a YAML definition of its title, sections, and fields"). The purpose is unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling create-template or create-custom-template-version tools.

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?

It names the required creator fields (user_email/user_id) and the optional custom_term_id, which implies prerequisites, but offers no when-to-use vs alternative guidance or exclusions relative to create-template or create-custom-template-version.

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