Instantiate Template Natively

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the fallback behavior and the 'allowFallback' parameter but lacks details on error scenarios, required permissions, what happens to the original template, or the output structure. The description is too brief for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence of 18 words, clearly front-loaded with the core action. Efficient but could be slightly more structured for readability. No extraneous information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits expected return value, error states, and prerequisites (e.g., template existence, user permissions). The fallback behavior is mentioned but not fully contextualized.

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 86% (6/7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds high-level context about native cloning vs fallback but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: instantiating a template using native AFFiNE block cloning with fallback. The verb 'instantiate' and resource 'template' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_doc_from_template', which may serve a similar purpose.

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 implies usage context (when native cloning is supported or fallback is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_doc_from_template'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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