create_template

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'create or manage chart templates' without any information about side effects (e.g., delete is destructive, apply modifies diagrams), required permissions, or operational details. The schema hints at these actions, but the description itself is silent on behavior.

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 concise phrase, which is efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and multiple discrete actions. For the complexity level, a one-line phrase is too minimal to serve as a complete tool description. It is not verbose, yet it fails to convey necessary structure.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple actions, nested template_data object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It provides only a high-level purpose and leaves out crucial context like return values, side effects per action, and which parameters apply to which action. The schema covers parameter syntax but not the operational context.

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% for all parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter and its purpose. The description adds nothing about parameters—it doesn't explain how the action field drives the operation or how parameters relate. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden, but the description contributes no additional semantic clarity.

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 the tool creates or manages chart templates, which clearly identifies the resource (图表模板) and a verb (创建/管理). It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_diagram or apply_theme, which target diagrams or themes rather than templates. However, 'manage' is vague and doesn't enumerate the specific actions (create, save, list, delete, apply) that the schema reveals.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tool names (e.g., save_diagram, load_diagram) offer context, but the description itself gives no usage direction.

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