authoring-create-item-template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write; the description adds useful context by naming the Authoring and Management API surface and the GUID-only parent constraint. It does not disclose failure behavior, name-conflict handling, or reversibility, which matters for a mutation 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by two compact constraints. No filler, and the most important information (what it creates) comes first.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool that builds nested sections and fields, the description covers purpose, parent constraint, and field-type naming but says nothing about what the call returns or how partial failures in nested sections are reported, and there is no output schema to compensate. Annotations cover the safety profile, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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 100%, so every parameter, section, and field property is already documented inline. The description's notes about the GUID parent and Sitecore field-type names largely restate what the schema already says ('A path is not accepted — resolve it with authoring-get-item'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a Sitecore data template, with its sections and fields, in one call'), which cleanly separates it from generic item creation like authoring-create-item. It never explicitly names the nearest sibling, authoring-update-item-template, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the create verb and by the prerequisite that the parent GUID be resolved via authoring-get-item, which usefully points at a sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus authoring-update-item-template, and no stated exclusions or preconditions beyond the GUID requirement.

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