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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral facts beyond them: the definition is persisted as the template's first version, and attached custom terms propagate into agreements created from the template. It stops short of saying whether the template is immediately usable or how duplicate names are handled.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and input format, followed by the creator requirement and the optional term attachment. Each sentence carries information, though the custom_term_id sentence largely duplicates the schema text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation profile. For a tool with one nested body parameter, the description supplies the essential extras: the YAML definition becomes version one, a creator identity is required, and custom terms can be attached. Nothing critical for a correct call 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%, so the schema already explains name, definition, user_id, user_email and custom_term_id in detail. The description restates the creator requirement and the custom_term_id effect, both of which are already in the property descriptions, so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema. 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 ('Create a custom template') and adds the concrete input shape ('from a YAML definition of its title, sections, and fields'), which an agent can distinguish from create-template and create-custom-template-version. It never explicitly names those siblings, so differentiation rests on the name plus the word 'custom' rather than on stated contrast.

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 prerequisites ('Requires user_email or user_id to record the creator') and an optional extension ('Optionally pass custom_term_id'), which is useful call-shaping context. It does not say when to pick this over create-template or create-custom-template-version, nor what to do if a template with the same name already exists, so the when-to-use routing is only implied.

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