apply_thesis_template

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a write side effect ('persist layout/export metadata') but never says whether the operation overwrites existing layout settings, what happens if the template name is unknown, whether it is reversible, or who may invoke it. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the secondary persistence effect appended. No padding, though it is terse enough that it omits needed detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter information, and it leaves both under-specified. An agent cannot reliably determine required inputs beyond the obvious two or the side-effect semantics.

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% across four parameters. The description implicitly covers drawing_id ('existing drawing') and template_name ('stored ... template'), but says nothing about title and figure_no, which the 'layout/export metadata' phrase only vaguely gestures at. It does not compensate for the parameter documentation gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Apply') plus a specific resource ('a stored thesis/map template to an existing drawing'), and adds a second effect ('persist layout/export metadata'). That is enough to distinguish it from the drawing/map-layout siblings. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as create_map_layout or add_legend, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the named template must already exist and the drawing must already be open). The usage context is only implied by 'existing drawing'.

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