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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: scope of impact ('only changes who can see it INSIDE your own workspace'), and explicit non-effects ('nothing becomes public and nothing is sent outside the account'). That directly explains what the destructive-flagged change actually affects.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then parameter notes, then the impact clarification. Dense but each clause earns its place; the parenthetical is slightly awkward but carries the important ownership exclusion.

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?

Covers ownership rules, permission requirement, parameter shape, and blast radius, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Missing only error behavior (e.g., what happens when switching a non-owned template), which is a minor gap for a simple visibility toggle.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining id is a uuid for one of your own templates and body.visibility takes personal|org with an authorization constraint. It stops short of UUID sourcing or failure modes, but covers both parameters meaningfully.

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+resource (switch template between personal <-> company-shared) and explicitly scopes ownership ('YOUR OWN templates'), distinguishing it from update_template or duplicate_template. The parenthetical exclusion of other people's company templates further sharpens the purpose.

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 clear conditions: use for your own templates, cannot switch one created by another guide, and 'org' requires being a company owner/manager. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., update_template) for adjacent edits, but the preconditions are unusually explicit.

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