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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context: it stores a user-owned template in the canonical catalog, does not publish to the anonymous gallery, and the returned id is immediately usable with other tools. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying side effects and integration behavior.

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?

Two sentences, 46 words, with the action and resource front-loaded. Every clause adds value—what it creates, how the result is used, where it is stored, and what it does not do.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the essential return behavior (template_id) and its integration with get_text_fields and generate. It does not enumerate all parameters, but the schema already handles that. The description is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond calling it a 'structured brief', but the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter, so no significant gap exists.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('private reusable DesignForYou template') and clearly states it derives from a structured brief. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_templates and generate by emphasizing privacy, reusability, and catalog storage.

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 explains that the returned template_id works with get_text_fields and generate, and explicitly states it does not publish to the anonymous gallery, giving the agent a clear sense of when this tool is appropriate. It lacks an explicit alternative name, so it doesn't fully earn a 5, but the context is strong.

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