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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: required scope `templates:manage`, the exact POST /manage-templates mapping, and that the same HTTP API billing and rate limits apply. The draft-status disclosure also sets expectations about the created object's state.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core purpose, with the first line immediately stating what the tool creates. It is slightly redundant ('Create a template' then 'Creates a new pass template') and the 'Do not invent other paths' sentence is defensive, but overall every major fact fits in a few lines.

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 15-parameter tool with a massive nested structure and no output schema, the description gives the endpoint, scope, draft status, and billing context, which is useful but incomplete. It does not clarify the returned template representation, post-create workflow (e.g., publishing), or how the dual-wallet structure is intended to be populated beyond what the schema already says.

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?

With 47% schema description coverage (below 50%) the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it contains no parameter guidance at all. The heavy lifting is left to the input schema properties, and the description does not even mention required inputs like pass_style or structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new pass template in draft status.' This distinguishes createTemplate from sibling create* tools (createApiKey, createApp) and from updateTemplate/publishTemplate by clarifying the lifecycle stage (draft).

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?

There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative; use is implied by 'Creates a new pass template'. The draft-status mention signals it is not for publishing, but the description does not say to use updateTemplate for edits or publishTemplate to take it live.

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