Apply a service template

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses merge semantics ('Existing names stay untouched'), the daemon side effect and its escape hatch ('Installs the background service when absent unless no_daemon_install is true'), a hard negative boundary ('never installs or starts third-party applications'), and the return shape (per-service created-or-skipped actions and counts). This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure that the idempotentHint/destructiveHint flags cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and outcome, then alternatives, then side effects. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the third sentence packs three distinct behaviors into one long clause chain, slightly taxing to parse.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description still summarizes them. Combined with the fully covered two-parameter schema and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds conditional behavior for no_daemon_install and clarifies that 'name' refers to a built-in template rather than an arbitrary app. It stops short of restating the template_list source verbatim, which the schema already does.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: writes a fixed built-in multi-service stack's missing services into the local registry. The scope word 'missing' and the contrast with recipe_apply let an agent separate it from its nearest sibling 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?

Explicitly says to use it 'after reviewing template_plan' and names recipe_apply as the alternative with its different behavior ('registers one app-specific recipe with overrides'). Both the sequencing and the exclusion are stated, not inferred.

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