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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses that active content, forms, and unsafe URLs are rejected rather than sanitized-and-kept, and that surviving content is stored as blocks. This goes beyond a generic mutation warning and clarifies the side effects of the import. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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 three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the core purpose first, then the safety-relevant behavior, then the storage model and equivalence to authored templates. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation/import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical knowledge an agent needs: safe-subset enforcement, rejection instead of sanitization, block storage, and draft status. It lacks explicit return-value or error-shape details, but the outcome is specified well enough to support 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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the html parameter by defining what 'safe' means operationally: active content, forms, and unsafe URLs are rejected. It also explains the persistence semantics of the imported content, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema alone.

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 states a specific action and resource: importing a safe HTML subset as a draft. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling template tools by emphasizing that the result is a draft and behaves exactly like an authored template, so an agent can tell it apart from template_create, template_update, or template_export.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and the phrase 'as a draft', but the description does not explicitly tell an agent when to choose this over template_create or template_update. It provides clear context for what the tool does, but no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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