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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: the exact shape of the returned payload and the fact that it includes a source package for local rendering, which tells the agent what it can do with the result.

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, zero filler. The payload enumeration is front-loaded and the sequencing instruction is placed last where it acts as a call-to-action rather than preamble.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the pre-call sequencing with build_edit_link is supplied. Minor gaps remain (no mention of error cases or whether the spec is variant-specific vs. shared), but an agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (searchId, variantId) are documented in the schema with patterns and provenance ('from search_templates', 'returned by search_templates'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (editable fields of one template), then enumerates exactly what the spec contains: props, text roles with maxLength, theme colors, scenes, format, JSON Schema, and source package. An agent can tell this apart from render_preview and build_edit_link without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences the call: 'Call before build_edit_link and start from the returned props,' naming the alternative it precedes. It gives clear context but does not say when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g., when render_preview or search_templates alone would suffice), so no exclusion guidance.

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