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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description earns credit for explaining the blast radius concretely: all widgets and the background are replaced. It stops short of saying whether this is reversible (despite the undo_change sibling) or what happens on an invalid template.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence; the destructive scope appears first and the grade-level parenthetical trails as secondary detail. Nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what is destroyed and what the template adapts to. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and failure behavior with an unknown template ID.

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 schema already documents both board_id and template, including the built-in/custom ID format. The description only adds that the applied template is adapted to the screen's class grade level; that is useful context but not parameter-level semantics.

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?

"Ersetzt alle Widgets und den Hintergrund des Bildschirms durch eine Vorlage" gives a specific verb (ersetzen) and resource (Vorlage/Widgets/Hintergrund), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not name a sibling for contrast (e.g. clear_board or save_template), which keeps it below a 5.

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 implies the use case (put a whole-classroom template onto a screen) but never says when to prefer it over clear_board, add_widget, or update_board, nor any precondition such as the board already existing. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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