create_record_template

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating the tool creates (confirming write operation) and returns an rtp-prefixed templateId. It also mentions a typical follow-up, which helps with expected behavior. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and return value, then provides a useful next step. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (templateId). It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a creation tool with well-documented parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (appId, tableId, name, debug) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 creates a new record template for a table, specifies the return value (templateId with rtp-prefix), and distinguishes from sibling tools like apply_record_template, delete_record_template, and set_record_template_cell.

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 says to use set_record_template_cell after creation, providing some sequential guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since it is the only creation tool for record templates among siblings, the context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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