Copy Gallery Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description usefully adds that the result is an editable copy inside the org's templates, which signals the created resource is a working copy rather than the source. It does not address that repeated calls are non-idempotent (would create duplicates) or any permission requirements.

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 well-formed sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though one clause describing the copy's destination and purpose is all it offers.

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 simple 2-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. It could be stronger by clarifying how the copy relates to existing org templates, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both id and name documented, including the default behavior for name. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (copy) and resource (a gallery design) plus the destination (the organization's templates), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name how it differs from create-template or clone-in-app-campaign, so it falls short of the 5-tier sibling differentiation.

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 outcome clause ('where it can be edited and used by campaigns'), giving the agent a sense of why one would copy a gallery template. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative such as create-template.

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