save_template

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of overwriting an existing template, which goes beyond the annotations. This aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, framing the tool as a safe upsert rather than a one-time mutation.

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 five words with zero filler, and the action verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple write tool and every word 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 the full schema coverage, existing output schema, and clear annotations, 'Create or overwrite a template' is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only non-obvious nuance, upsert behavior, is explicitly stated.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including placeholder tokens, name constraints, and the optional subject. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 exact operation ('Create or overwrite') and resource ('a template'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling template tools (list_templates, get_template, delete_template, render_template) by naming the write/upsert behavior.

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 the clear use case: call this tool when you need to create a new template or replace an existing one by name. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the resource-specific verb 'save' plus 'create or overwrite' provides enough context to select it over the read/delete/render siblings.

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