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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it confirms idempotency ('Saving again returns the same template'), discloses plan-limit behaviour with `plan_required`, explains retention (import copy deleted after 7 days, template persists), and states the billing model (free, renders bill as renders). Annotations say nothing about limits, retention, or billing.

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?

Front-loads the core action and precondition, then layers limits, idempotency, retention, and billing in short clauses with no filler. Dense but each sentence carries distinct 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 no output schema, the description usefully spells out the return (template ref `name@1`, fields, render instructions), and covers the lifecycle, quota, and cost facts an agent needs before calling. Complete for this operation.

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 documents all three parameters including the name defaulting rule and the pattern. The description repeats the `name` default rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so 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 ('Save a `ready` import as a template on this account') and pins the precondition that the import must be `ready`. This clearly distinguishes it from create_template (build from scratch) and update_template (publish changes to an existing template).

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 a concrete trigger ('once the person has seen the preview and says it is right') and points to `update_template` as the tool for later changes, but does not explicitly state when not to use this versus `create_template`.

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