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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the operation requires admin privileges. It also reveals that creation includes a root node, which is more than the annotations alone convey. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the critical admin requirement. There is no wasted text or repetition of schema 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?

For a straightforward creation tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: what is created, the root node, and the admin requirement. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the action itself is fully specified.

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%, so the schema already documents title, canvasWidth, and canvasHeight adequately. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting the template has a root node, which the schema param descriptions already mention. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (create), resource (new template document), and distinctive behavior (with a root node). It differentiates this tool from siblings like template_clone, template_update, and document_create, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for creating a new template document, not cloning, updating, or publishing one. It also adds an important precondition (requires admin). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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