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

Annotations only provide shallow hints (idempotent false, destructive false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that a template is a point-in-time copy, that later changes to the source Riddle do not propagate, that unpublished content is included, and that the template-create permission is required. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent accurate expectations.

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 compact and well-organized: first the primary action, then the important snapshot semantics, then the return shape and permission requirement. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the explicit return object listing is valuable. The description also covers permission requirements, the non-propagation behavior, and what content is copied. For a tool of this complexity, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand its effects.

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 input schema already explains UUID, title, and isQuickCreate in detail. The description adds general copy semantics and return-field context but does not need to re-document parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not materially expand on the schema's parameter explanations.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Stores an existing Riddle as a template') and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling riddle_template_use by explaining that new Riddles can later be created from the template. It also clarifies scope (project or user) and copy semantics, so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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 description names riddle_template_use as the follow-up tool and gives a clear reason for using this tool: to create a reusable template from an existing Riddle. It does not explicitly say when not to use alternatives like riddle_template_list or riddle_template_get, but the context is clear enough that an agent should not confuse creation with retrieval.

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