common-set-base-template

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

Annotations flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by spelling out the concrete consequence of removal: fields are stripped from every derived item along with their values. This is genuinely useful blast-radius context. It stops short of describing the add-side effects or any permission requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded immediately after the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete: purpose plus the key destructive side effect. Only the add-side behavior and any id/path resolution nuance are left unstated.

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 (id, path, action, database, template) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, resolution, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (adds/removes) and a precise resource (a base template on a template item), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like common-test-base-template or common-set-item-template, which the agent must sort out on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as common-test-base-template (to check) or common-set-item-template (a different template operation). The action enum implies the add/remove branch, but the description never says when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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