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

The description clearly conveys that it creates a new version and optionally publishes it, and the annotations already indicate no destructive or read-only behavior. It doesn't explicitly repeat idempotency, but the annotation handles that. Overall it is transparent about the main side effect.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loads the core purpose. It uses clear, direct language without redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 that an output schema exists and sibling tools are available, the description supplies enough context to use the tool correctly. It references the schema source, explains the publish behavior, and distinguishes from create_api_template, covering all necessary usage aspects.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, and the main description adds valuable context for definition (how to author it) and publish (what true means). This goes beyond the baseline but does not drastically expand on the schema.

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's function: adding a new version to an existing API template. It distinguishes this from creating a brand-new template via the explicit note 'For a brand-new api template, use create_api_template.'

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (existing templates only), how to author the definition using get_api_template_definition_schema, and the optional publish flag with its effect. It also names the alternative for new templates.

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