Upload Template

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by explaining the storage, versioning, and usage lifecycle. It mentions that providing a Version ID causes an error. While it doesn't cover authentication or rate limits, it provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 long, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds detail on workflow and formatting. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema. The description covers the core workflow, versioning, and format support. It does not detail error handling or prerequisites, but given the complexity and presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions accepted formats and versioning, but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It is adequate but not improved over the schema documentation.

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. It specifies the subsequent use with render_document, distinguishes from siblings by mentioning versioning and deployedAt, and lists supported formats. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explains when to use the tool (to upload templates for later rendering) and highlights versioning and deployment behavior. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context of siblings like update_template_metadata and list_templates provides implicit differentiation. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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