template_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses the synchronous execution, the side effect of saving when save=true, and the return value ('Returns the extracted template object; if saved, includes the new template id'). It does not mention auth requirements or error cases, but covers the essential behavioral traits for this simple 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 three sentences, immediately starting with the core purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information: what it does, the synchronous nature, and the save/return behavior. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: operation, timing, optional saving, and return value. It could mention the default brandId behavior or error scenarios, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity. The overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the outcome of save=true ('also persist the template to the brand's library') and the resulting template id, but it does not add meaning for postText or brandId beyond what the schema already states. The schema remains the primary source for parameter semantics.

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 the tool's function: 'AI extracts a reusable content template from a pasted post text.' It uses a specific verb ('extracts') and resource ('content template from pasted post text'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like template_create and template_pick. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by stating it is synchronous ('Synchronous (seconds) — no polling needed'), which guides the agent away from polling. It also explains the optional save behavior ('Pass save=true to also persist'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use template_create instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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