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

Annotations already declare the operation writes (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and is idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description usefully extends this with 'Admin-only,' the skip-existing behavior ('never duplicates'), and the unknown-key fallback returning available templates with a did-you-mean suggestion rather than an error. However, it also explains return contents even though a full output schema exists, so much of the added prose overlaps structured data rather than contributing new behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and impact, then when-to-use and an example. It is somewhat long and repeats the idempotency point twice ('keys that already exist are skipped' and 're-applying only adds what's missing'), and the explicit return-value sentence is redundant given the output schema.

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?

Given a single required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the definition covers everything needed: admin-only prerequisite, idempotency semantics, error/fallback behavior for bad keys, a pointer to describe_schema for discovering keys, and a usage example. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 states the key must be one of describe_schema's `templates` keys with an example. The description largely restates this (pass the template's key), adding only the unknown-key fallback behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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+resource ('Apply a curated schema template') and expands the resource concretely as a pre-vetted bundle of objects, fields, pick-list values, pipelines, and starter views. It distinguishes itself from the manual-construction siblings (define_object, define_field, define_pipeline) by framing the action as adopting a whole bundle 'instead of defining each piece by hand.'

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 explicit 'When to use' section names the condition (an admin adopting a whole curated bundle at once) and the alternative approach (defining each piece by hand), plus the prerequisite 'Admin-only.' An agent can route to this tool over the define_* siblings without inferring anything.

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