create_procedure_from_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the intended action without addressing side effects, permissions, template validation, copy behavior, or return values. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action. However, it is so brief that it lacks needed detail, though this detracts more from completeness than conciseness.

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?

The tool involves creating a new instance from a template with four parameters, yet the description offers no insight into the process, optional parameter behavior, template requirements, or return format. The absence of output schema and annotations further compounds the incompleteness.

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?

The schema has only 25% coverage (id has a description), and the description does not mention any parameters. It does not clarify the role of name, company_id, or description (e.g., whether they override template values). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a new Procedure instance from an existing template.' It uses a specific verb ('create'), identifies the resource ('Procedure instance'), and specifies the source ('from an existing template'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_procedure and duplicate_procedure.

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?

The description implies usage scenarios (creating a procedure based on a template) and the name reinforces this, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_procedure or duplicate_procedure, nor any exclusions. It is implied rather than stated.

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