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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the operation creates or updates a template and that authenticated Proof account access is required. It does not describe return values, overwrite semantics, or side effects on existing templates, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, and a second provides an important access warning. There is no wasted content, though the access note could have been integrated more cleanly.

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?

The schema covers parameters and the description covers the auth requirement, which is essential for invocation. However, the description omits upsert semantics, return behavior, and any guidance on how this differs from the generic update_template tool, leaving the agent to infer some context.

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?

The input schema already describes all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description broadly maps to profile_id, channel, and type but adds no detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (a custom template), the key dimensions (profile, channel, message type), and the action (create or update). It is clear enough to identify the tool's target, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like update_template or list_profile_templates.

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 provides an access prerequisite and instructs the agent to authenticate before retrying, which is useful. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_template or preview_profile_template, and it gives no exclusion criteria.

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