Manage transaction template

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It names operations but does not disclose side effects (e.g., what delete or hide does), whether confirmation_token is required, differences between normal and scheduled templates, or response behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the key actions. It is appropriately short for a tool whose schema is large, though it sacrifices depth. The sentence earns its place by stating the core purpose.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It only enumerates operations and omits critical context like the mode parameter (preview/apply), patch semantics, order reordering via orders, template_ref targeting, and confirmation_token. The description does not equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. It mentions 'normal and scheduled' but does not explain key parameters like template, patch, orders, template_ref, mode, or confirmation_token. The description offers no compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Create, update, hide, unhide, reorder or delete normal and scheduled transaction templates.' This precisely identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling list_templates, which is read-only. The enumeration of operations covers all the schema's operation enum values.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_templates should be used for reading, nor does it describe prerequisites or context for operations like create vs update. The usage is only implied by the resource name.

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