muse_template

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only lists actions without mentioning idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or what happens on errors. The lack of details about actions like 'delete' or 'update' is a gap.

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 concise: one sentence followed by a list of actions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the list could be more structured (e.g., grouping actions by type), but still minimal waste.

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?

With 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the template lifecycle, how actions interact, or what results to expect. The schema covers parameter details, but the overall picture is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema. The action list is redundant with the schema's enum. No new meaning is added.

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 'Manages custom document templates with variable substitution', which clearly identifies the tool's domain. The list of actions (create, get, etc.) further specifies functionality. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the subject matter, which are all distinct anyway.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting specific actions. The sibling tools are all different, but the description offers no decision-making support.

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