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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: an empty custom_term_id unlinks terms, a terms change publishes a new template version, and user_id records the publisher. The side effect of version publishing is the key disclosure here.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the sibling redirect. No filler; each clause carries operational 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 no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers rename, terms linking/unlinking, version publishing, and sibling routing, leaving little an agent needs beyond what's given.

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 only 50%, but the nested body properties carry rich inline descriptions (name, user_id format/422 note, custom_term_id link/unlink semantics) that already cover the substance. The description largely restates this ('Pass custom_term_id to link terms, or an empty string to unlink'), adding only marginal meaning over the schema.

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 ('Rename a custom template') and a second distinct operation ('change its linked custom terms'), then explicitly routes YAML edits to the sibling create-custom-template-version. An agent can distinguish it from the create/version siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly names an alternative (YAML changes go through create-custom-template-version), giving clear when-not guidance for that case. It doesn't enumerate every alternative among the many update-* siblings, but the routing for the ambiguous case is stated plainly.

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