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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the concrete mechanism those hints only gesture at — a name collision silently replaces the existing template. It also sketches the downstream workflow ('build Acme's monthly report from our template') using report_template_get and create_client_report. Auth/permission requirements are the remaining gap.

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 purpose before the sourcing alternatives and the overwrite rule. The quoted user-phrasing examples ('save this as our monthly SEO template') anchor intent without padding.

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 6-param tool with deep nested objects, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, both input modes, and the destructive name-collision behavior. It leaves unspecified whether the name is the unique key for the whole agency and what the call returns, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% (name and title carry no description), so the description has to compensate. It clarifies the source relationship between from_report and sections/style, but adds no meaning for name or title beyond what the property names imply. Marginal value over the schema, so baseline 3.

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 ('Save a report template') and defines what that artifact contains ('a structure and a style the agency reuses'). It also names the retrieval counterpart (report_template_get) and the consumption tool (create_client_report), so an agent can place it among the report_* siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 two explicit sourcing paths — copy from an existing report via from_report, or supply sections and style inline — which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to prefer report_style or update_client_report instead), so it is clear context without comparable disambiguation.

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