make_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states that files are written to specific paths, that PNG output is returned as an image unless inline=False, and that on remote servers files stay as a temporary working copy deleted when unused. It also warns never to use ssh, scp, or a shell. It doesn't cover failure modes or whether overwriting an existing template is possible.

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?

It is front-loaded and every clause carries information, with no filler. The structure suffers, though: a single dense paragraph of nested parentheticals makes it hard to scan, especially the kind explanation, which could have been bulleted.

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 complex 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is substantially complete: it covers output locations, formats, the PNG side image, remote-server behavior, and the user-confirmation step. Only variant and the role of part remain unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most of the 14 parameters: kind's three modes, at, face, plane, center, size, thickness, label, formats, base, and inline all receive meaning. However, variant is never explained and part/name are only indirectly implied, leaving real gaps in a large parameter set.

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 opening sentence defines the artifact precisely: a thin test print from the real part with the same hole compensation, used to check size, holes, and mating fits. It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to list_faces for face confirmation and download_part for remote retrieval, though it never quite states a crisp verb+resource like 'Create a fit-test template'.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: confirm the face or region with the user first, using list_faces with highlight. It also explains the remote-server workflow and directs the agent to download_part. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance versus check_fit or other verification siblings, but the relevant alternative is named.

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