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

Annotations already declare mutation and destructive behavior, but the description adds important operational context: updating replaces the body and should be preceded by `template_get` if the full text is not already available. It also clarifies that saving does not inject the snippet into campaigns, which goes beyond the annotation block.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the create-vs-update condition, then follows with focused exclusions and safety guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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-parameter upsert tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the important behavioral and routing details. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the return value or whether the saved template is returned, but otherwise it is sufficiently complete for 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds key meaning for `templateId`: its presence switches the tool from create to update. It also reinforces the need to read the existing body before replacing it, which is more than the schema's terse `Template id` description.

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 operation—saving a reusable template—and explicitly distinguishes create vs. update via `templateId`. It also separates the tool from siblings like `flow_set` and `flow_from_template`, so an agent can identify its role without opening other 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: pass `templateId` to update rather than create, use `template_get` first when updating without the full body, and do not confuse this with putting content into campaigns (`flow_set`) or applying prebuilt sequence shapes (`flow_from_template`).

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