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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the change is confined to the company workspace, that nothing becomes public, and that nothing leaves the account. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive (e.g., whether existing viewers lose access), leaving one meaningful gap.

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 with the action front-loaded, followed by params, then permission and blast-radius scope. No filler or repetition.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers permissions and scope well, but omits what happens to current viewers when a template reverts to personal, which matters for a destructive-flagged mutation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by naming both params and their shapes: id (uuid) and body { visibility: personal|org }. It partially duplicates the schema's format and enum constraints and never says explicitly that id is the template identifier, but it is enough for an agent to construct the call.

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 ('Switch a template between personal <-> company-shared'), which is a distinct operation from the sibling update_template. An agent can identify this as the visibility-toggle tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear permission precondition ('org only for a company owner/manager') that gates the operation. It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when-not to use it, but the scope clarification covers the main selection ambiguity.

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