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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that templates can be duplicated from catalog and that catalog templates are shared and immutable. However, it doesn't address permissions, return behavior, or what happens if the template name already exists, leaving transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a useful clarification about catalog templates. Every sentence carries meaning, so it is concise and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about the template's content fields and return value. It only covers the duplication aspect, leaving many aspects of the tool undocumented.

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 description only adds context for from_template_id, which is already described in the schema. It doesn't explain the purpose of blocks, subject, preheader, or other fields, and the schema has low coverage (14%). Thus, the description adds minimal value for most parameters.

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 clearly states the tool creates an account-specific template ('Crea una plantilla propia de la cuenta') and optionally duplicates from a catalog using from_template_id. This specific verb+resource distinction sets it apart from catalog templates and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_flow.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a custom template, and that catalog templates are shared and cannot be edited, so users should duplicate them here. This provides clear context, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X'.

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