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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only but is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: multi-step templates remain non-executable reference cards and the tool never launches paid work, which is important for an agent to know before invoking apply.

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 two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the execution-safety constraint.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but for a 10-parameter tool with a conditional apply flow and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained. It does not clarify the apply confirmation fields, request_id, idempotency expectations, or most required parameters.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only alludes to digest and revision, and says nothing about template_key, project_id, node_id, confirm_template_key, request_id, prompt, lang, or the action enum.

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 states a clear verb and resource: previewing a site template card on Canvas and optionally saving that draft. This is more specific than a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as aimixer_canvas_preview, aimixer_canvas_apply, or aimixer_templates_get.

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 two-step flow is implied: preview first, then optionally apply/save with digest and revision. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, and no when-not-to-use guidance beyond the limitation that multi-step templates are non-executable.

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