Apply template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by naming exactly what is destroyed (names, colours and notes of the desktops it covers). It also discloses a behavior an agent could not infer from any structured field: that Spacepal shows an on-screen dialog when the template needs more desktops than exist, which affects how the call should be sequenced with user interaction.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose, then the destructive warning, the workaround, the dialog caveat and the sibling pointer, and every sentence carries operational weight. It is slightly dense packed into one paragraph, but there is no filler to cut.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, prerequisites, an edge case (insufficient desktops) and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum that already lists Developer, Designer, Freelancer, Student and Streamer. The description repeats that list verbatim but adds no meaning about format, defaults or validation beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Name and colour the user's desktops") and immediately names the exact source of the data (Spacepal's built-in starter templates, enumerated by name). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling apply_profile, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 ("ask the user first") and an explicit alternative for a different case ("For the user's own saved sets use apply_profile instead"). It even offers a workaround for users who want to keep current names, which is more than most definitions provide.

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