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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by flagging the required write scope and the underlying endpoint, which tells the agent about authentication requirements. It does not disclose what happens on duplicate names or whether repeated calls create duplicates, which matters for a non-idempotent create.

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 tightly packed clauses with the scope marker and action front-loaded; every word carries information and there is no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate restraint, and the bracketed scope syntax is slightly noisy.

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?

For a 14-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema and only 43% schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. It omits the required/optional split, the meaning of the length constraint object, how sections map to generated placeholders, and what the response contains, leaving the agent to infer the call shape.

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 only 43% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Nothing explains the required trio (name/format/length), the nested length.captionWords / titleMaxWords / perSlideMaxWords interaction with the format enum, section ordering, or ctaSlots placement. 'In a brand' is the sole parameter-relevant phrase beyond what the schema holds.

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: 'Creates a reusable format (text template) in a brand,' which disambiguates it from create_frame, create_content, and update_text_template. The parenthetical API mapping (POST /api/v2/text-templates) reinforces exactly what is created. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling read/update/delete template tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to create a new format vs. use update_text_template on an existing one, or that formats should be listed first via list_text_templates. The only implicit hint is 'in a brand,' which suggests brandId is needed. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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