Upload Template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint false and idempotentHint false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining versioning behavior (multiple versions under a single ID, deployedAt controls active version) and the accepted formats. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions and adds value for invocation.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and workflow, then add versioning and format details without redundancy. Every sentence adds distinct information, making it efficient 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?

Given the rich schema with 100% coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and versioning concept. It could mention the three accepted input forms (file path, URL, base64) but those are detailed in the schema's template parameter. Overall, nothing critical is missing for an agent to use 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides; it mentions versioning and formats already covered in schema property descriptions. No extra semantic details are provided in the description itself.

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 uploads and stores a reusable Carbone template, and distinguishes it from render_document by specifying that the returned Template ID is used for rendering. It also mentions versioning, which sets it apart from metadata-only tools like update_template_metadata. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Once uploaded, use render_document with the returned Template ID.' It also hints at versioning usage with deployedAt controlling active version. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_templates or update_template_metadata, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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