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

Beyond the non-destructive write annotations, the description discloses import conversion behavior (what becomes editable blocks) and what is dropped (images, scripts). However, "left lists them" is garbled and does not clearly state where the omitted items are reported, and no side effects like validation failures or revision behavior are described.

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?

Dense and reasonably front-loaded, with the key constraint in the second sentence. But "left lists them" and "A starter answers its sample data too, for preview_template" are unclear fragments that cost the reader a re-read.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned id, revision and fields. For a tool with a nested body object fully documented by the schema, the remaining gap is only the ambiguous handling of omitted images/scripts.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the mutually-exclusive-one-of rule across the four input modes and the {{path}} placeholder convention for markdown/html. The starter/preview_template relationship is mentioned but stated awkwardly.

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 new template"), and the word "new" implicitly distinguishes it from update_template. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 hard selection rule for the four alternative input modes ("Send exactly one of body, markdown, html or starter"), which is real when-to-use guidance absent from the schema. It omits any guidance about when to use create_template versus preview_template or update_template.

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