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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by disclosing that pages, widgets, and datasource categories are automatically copied or derived from the source report.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides high-value behavioral detail about what gets copied without repeating schema content.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool does, what it copies, and the source input. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on choosing this tool over related create/duplicate tools, but that is already covered under usage guidelines.

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 thoroughly. The description reinforces the role of report_id by mentioning copied pages/widgets, and adds 'datasource categories' as an extra effect, but it does not materially improve an agent's understanding of how to supply the parameters.

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 clear action ('Create a template') with a specific source resource ('from an existing report'), and further specifies what is copied or derived. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like create_report_from_template and duplicate_report, even without reading those definitions.

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?

The context is implied: use this when you have an existing report and want to create a template from it. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as create_report_from_template, create_report, or duplicate_report, nor does it state any exclusions.

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