editor_run_template

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context with 'intended live buffer' (targets live content, not a scratch copy) and 'configured trusted root' (a security/sandbox constraint). It still omits what the template execution can change, error behavior, or reversibility.

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 tight sentence with the key scoping constraints front-loaded. No wasted words, though its brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough. It should say what template execution produces or modifies, expected failure modes, and how the trusted-root resolution works.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description loosely implies buffer_id ('intended live buffer') and template_path ('from a configured trusted root'), but gives no format, path resolution rules, or ID semantics to compensate for the undocumented 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 (Run) and resource (.bt template), scoped to a configured trusted root and the intended live buffer. This distinguishes it from siblings like editor_patch_apply or editor_read, though what executing a template actually does to the buffer remains implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of editor_patch_apply or other editor mutation tools. The 'trusted root' constraint hints at a precondition but is not framed as usage guidance or an exclusion.

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