ruddur_apply_heading_template

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

It adds the permission scope requirement beyond the annotations, which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, return behavior, or how the template is applied. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes a key requirement. It is extremely concise with no wasteful words.

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 creation tool with nested body parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the template is used, what body content is expected, or what the response will be, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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% and the description adds no parameter-specific detail. The schema already documents templateId and the generic body/query fields. Baseline 3 applies as the description does not compensate further.

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 creates a Heading from a template, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ruddur_create_heading and ruddur_create_heading_template.

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 a scope requirement (content.manage) but does not explicitly compare this tool with alternatives like ruddur_create_heading. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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