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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive mutation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing side effects: the published version remains available, and the call initializes controls to redo on the first edit of a migrated catalog. The second point is jargon-heavy, which limits how actionable it is.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the initialization detail. The final sentence is dense internal jargon but no sentence is pure 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?

For a one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the core behavior is covered. It omits what the call returns (a draft identifier, editor handle, or just confirmation) and what happens if a draft already exists versus a published-only template.

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% and the description never mentions templateId, so it adds no format or sourcing guidance. The parameter name is self-explanatory and the schema carries min/max length, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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: open or resume the draft of an existing template. The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from create_template_draft, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'existing template' and 'resume', so an agent can infer it is for continuing work on a template already created. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives such as create_template_draft, publish_template, or list_managed_templates.

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