create_template

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioural burden. It does disclose real failure semantics — validation runs first, nothing is persisted on failure, and errors carry JSON paths — which is genuinely valuable for a write tool. It omits what happens on success (no output schema exists, so the return shape is unknowable), whether names must be unique, and any permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the layout structure inlined rather than prose-padded. No sentence is wasted; only the mid-sentence line break in the braces is slightly awkward.

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 a free-form nested layout object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition covers the layout contract and failure behaviour but leaves the success response and the mapping parameter unexplained. Adequate to attempt a correct call, not complete enough to guarantee one.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does for the hardest one, enumerating layout's keys (bind_model, slots[], master_refs?, translations?), but says nothing about name, description, and especially the entirely opaque 'mapping' parameter — an agent has no basis for filling that field.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a template from a Studio layout') and sketches the layout's shape inline. It distinguishes itself implicitly from create_from_starter and duplicate_template, but never names those siblings or explains the difference explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling set contains several near-neighbours (create_from_starter, duplicate_template, validate_layout) that go unaddressed. The one usable hint is that validation happens automatically inside the call, implying the agent need not pre-call validate_layout — useful, but implied rather than stated.

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