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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that creating does not publish and that templates remain non-sendable until published. This is a key side effect. It does not mention other behaviors like validation, audit logging, or return values, but the most critical nuance (draft vs publish) is covered.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the crucial publishing limitation is immediately highlighted. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 required params, no output schema), the description does not mention return values, error scenarios, or how to verify success. It also does not clarify the canonical block format, though the schema provides some context. The publishing workflow is explained, but an agent might need to infer that a successful create returns a template ID. This is a moderate gap but not fatal.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, including types, enums, and examples of variable structure. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'canonical block template draft', which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like template_publish and template_update. It also uses the word 'draft' to signal it is not the final sendable form, making its role unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that creating never publishes and that nothing can send until a later publish step freezes a version. This effectively tells the agent that this tool is for drafting and that a separate publish tool is required for sending. It does not name the specific sibling tool (template_publish), but the workflow is clear enough from the phrasing.

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