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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=false; the description goes further by disclosing the full object footprint of the operation and the sample-data behavior, and by naming the return payload. It stops short of warning that non-idempotent re-invocation creates duplicate spaces or what permissions are required, which keeps it from 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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads scope and the built objects, the second carries the invocation gate and the return. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need only a pointer, which the description supplies concisely. For a 4-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers scope, gating, and side effects without gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the includeSampleData default and the spaceId/folderId relationship. The description reinforces the sample-data toggle and the new-space-vs-existing-space branch but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ("Install a published template") and then enumerates exactly what gets built (sheets, views, dashboards, pages, workflows, example rows). This clearly separates it from template.browse and template.preview, which only read templates rather than materializing a space.

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?

"Call it once the user has said yes" gives an explicit precondition for invocation, which is the key gating decision for an install action. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. preview first), but the confirmation gate plus the schema reference to template.browse covers the practical routing.

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