New file from a built-in template

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral facts beyond them: it refuses to overwrite, requires macOS plus the installed app, and treats an omitted template as Blank/Basic White. It stops short of describing failure modes or the response, so a 4 rather than 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and keeps alternatives in a single compact trailing sentence. The telegraphic slash-separated phrasing is dense but nothing is wasted; the only slight cost is readability of the parenthetical Keynote-themes note.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given that, the description covers prerequisites (macOS + app), overwrite behavior, the blank-template default, and routing to sibling tools — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both path and template, including the must-not-exist constraint and the omit-for-blank rule. The description restates those points and adds only the pointer that names come from iwork_list_templates, which is marginal added value over the schema.

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 (create) plus resource (a new .numbers/.key/.pages file from Apple's built-in templates) and names the sibling tools it is not. An agent can distinguish it from iwork_create_from_template, numbers_create, and keynote_build_deck without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use (a new, empty file from Apple's templates) and three named alternatives with their selecting conditions: iwork_create_from_template for the user's own file, numbers_create for a Numbers file from data, keynote_build_deck for a finished deck from an outline.

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