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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: sub-resources are deep-copied, the copy receives an automatic name, and the plan quota applies. Annotations only flag it as a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so this extra context is valuable; it stops short of explaining what visibility does or what happens when the quota is hit.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the naming behavior and quota caveat. No filler.

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 no explanation, and the description covers ownership, deep-copy behavior, naming, and quota. The only gap is the meaning of the visibility enum, which affects the resulting template's state.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning, and it names both params (id uuid, body with optional visibility) and marks visibility as optional. However it never explains what 'personal' vs 'org' visibility does, so semantics remain thin.

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 ('Copy your own template ... into a NEW template'), and the parenthetical ownership scope plus the sibling names (update_template, duplicate_program) make clear what is being duplicated and what is not.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (your own template or a company template open to you) and routes the agent to update_template for renaming after the copy. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the ownership constraint covers the main eligibility question.

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