apply_template

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose that applying a template likely modifies the project directory, yet it says nothing about side effects, overwriting behavior, or required initial state. This is a significant gap for a potentially mutating operation.

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 a single, effective sentence that front-loads the action and lists all template options. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool has a nested customize parameter and no output schema, yet the description omits return behavior, side effects on the project, or preconditions. Given the likely mutating nature and the lack of annotations, the agent lacks sufficient information for safe invocation.

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 schema already provides descriptions for projectPath and templateName, and the description repeats the enum values without adding semantics for the customize object. It adds nominal value by framing templates as 'pre-built' but does not explain how customize interacts with the template application.

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 uses the verb 'apply' and clearly identifies the resource as 'pre-built game template' while enumerating all valid template names. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_project or load_project, which focus on different operations.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as create_project or generate_scenario. It implies use for pre-built templates but does not state prerequisites (e.g., an existing project) or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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