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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses several non-obvious traits: only future records are affected, empty list clears the template, lock is optional, and a required skill-doc read precedes the first call. It omits permission/auth requirements and any failure behavior, but the mutation semantics are well 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core effect and scope before the naming rule and prerequisite. Efficient overall, though the block-name guidance partially duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is mild waste.

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 three-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need not be described) and no annotations, the description covers scope, lock, removal semantics, naming source, and a prerequisite doc. Adequate to call correctly; only auth/error behavior is left unstated.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that block names come from list-blocks or core names like 'core/heading' and that an empty list removes the template, but this largely repeats the schema's own 'name' and 'blocks' descriptions rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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 precise verb (set) plus the resource (the blocks a NEW record of a post type opens with / editor template), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like create-post-type or assign-template-pages without opening a schema. 'Affects records created after this call only' pins down the scope.

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?

Gives clear context: it affects only records created afterward, and an empty list removes the template. It also names a prerequisite (read get-skill-doc 'content-model-contract' before the first call). It does not name a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance, but the applicability boundary is well defined.

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