Create from Template

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modification) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the 'Remix feature' and mentioning the waitForCompletion parameter, which reveals polling behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a summary, parameter list, returns note, and example. It is concise but could be slightly more compact. The front-loading of the purpose is effective.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (1 required), nested objects, and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return value when waitForCompletion is false. The returns note 'Same as gamma_generate' is vague without knowing gamma_generate's output.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description lists parameters with names and an example, but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema. The example provides context for usage, but doesn't deeply enhance semantic understanding.

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 purpose: 'Create new content by remixing an existing Gamma template.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('content by remixing template'), and distinguishes from sibling tool gamma_generate by specifying 'remix' versus likely create-from-scratch.

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 provides some context ('Useful for creating variations of proven templates') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus gamma_generate or other siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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