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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: messages are posted to the channel immediately (an observable side effect) and third-party templates require user confirmation. It stops short of describing failure behavior or return values, so not a 5.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is added, the message side effect, the third-party confirmation rule, and the prerequisite lookup steps. Front-loaded with purpose; only minor tightening would be possible.

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 mutation tool with 6 params (nested objects), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, sourcing of parameter values, side effects and a confirmation gate. It does not say what the call returns or how partial failures behave, which is the only remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description goes further by explaining that parameters (channels/roles) must be sourced from list_channels and list_roles or asked of the user, which adds operational meaning to the parameters object. The items/messages/server_id interplay is left to 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?

States a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('a template to an app') and enumerates exactly what gets installed: commands, event listeners, messages and stored variables. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_template / search_templates / update_template_install read and edit tools.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow (get the template with get_template and app_id first), tells the agent to ask the user for parameters it can't resolve, and names list_channels and list_roles as the sources for pickable values. It also states a when-not/gating rule: confirm with the user before adding templates not made by Kite.

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