common-set-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 knows this is a non-destructive mutation, but the description adds nothing beyond that structured signal. It doesn't say what actually changes when a template is assigned, whether existing field values are affected, or whether the operation requires the item id/path plus a resolvable template.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and no burying of key information. However, it is concise by omission rather than by discipline, so it earns only a middling score for structure.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested object parameter (fieldsToCopy), no output schema, and no annotations explaining consequences, yet the description says nothing about effects or edge cases. For an operation whose whole point is swapping an item's template and remapping fields, that is a significant gap.

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 100% schema description coverage across all five parameters — including the id/path alternative and the fieldsToCopy old-to-new field mapping — the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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?

"Sets the item template" restates the tool name almost verbatim, giving no more information than the identifier already did. It does not distinguish this from close siblings like common-set-base-template, common-get-item-template, authoring-update-item-template, or authoring-create-item-template, so an agent cannot tell which one to reach for.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling common-set-base-template in particular covers a closely related operation, and the description gives the agent nothing to choose between them.

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