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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only repeats the registering action and adds a version label. It does not disclose persistence, uniqueness constraints, overwrite behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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 main action is front-loaded in a single clear sentence. The trailing version note is short but adds little actionable value, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 description leaves an agent without guidance on when to register versus import, what constraints govern registration such as uniqueness or name conflicts, or what happens on success. The schema covers parameter meanings well, but the behavioral and usage context is still too thin.

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 86%, so the input schema already documents most parameters; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'custom', which loosely maps to the default category.

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 verb ('Register') and resource ('a new custom prompt template'), making the create intent clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from import_template_from_url, which could also introduce a template, so it does not earn 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The version note 'v0.4.0 Unified Prompt Templates feature' gives context but does not explain when to choose this tool over import_template_from_url or the read/list siblings.

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