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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context: publish=true publishes immediately, omission leaves a draft, and the owning service validates the definition on submit.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation, scope, schema dependency, publish option, and alternative within a few dense sentences. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies everything an agent needs: existing-template scope, required schema lookup, publish behavior, and the sibling to use for new templates.

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 100%, and the schema already explains template_id, definition, and publish in detail. The description reinforces the publish behavior and schema-authoring flow but does not add parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: add a new version to an EXISTING api template by template_id. It clearly scopes the operation to existing templates and distinguishes itself from create_api_template for brand-new templates.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool for evolving an existing api template and directs the agent to create_api_template for a brand-new one. It also explains the publish=true option and the default draft behavior.

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