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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the resulting template is owner-only and is not published, which is information annotations do not carry. It does not mention duplicate creation despite idempotentHint=false.

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 the trigger condition front-loaded, followed by the required inputs and the key side-effect. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The definition covers the essential call shape and the owner-only/no-publish outcome, but omits the optional metadata parameters and any duplication behavior.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It identifies the two required inputs (name and the document, referred to as "RichDocument" rather than the schema's documentJson) but says nothing about locale, category, or description, leaving three optional parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Creates an owner-only template") and the intended trigger (saving a reusable post layout). It lacks explicit differentiation from update_template/delete_template/list_templates, which the agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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?

"Use when the author asks to save a reusable post layout" gives a clear usage condition rather than a vague one. It does not name alternatives (e.g. update_template for modifying an existing template) or state when not to use it, so routing still requires some inference.

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