create_from_template

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing what gets copied (documents, properties, icon, tags), which goes beyond the annotations. It omits conflict/permission behavior and any warning that this is a non-idempotent write.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical efficiently enumerates the copied content. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description plus fully-described schema gives an agent enough to invoke correctly: what is created and from what. It is only marginally short of complete because it does not signal that this is a non-idempotent creation that can produce duplicates on retry.

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 all five parameters (including name default, parent, project, template, include_children) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond it, which meets the baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource from a template') and clarifies what the operation copies. It is distinguishable from create_resource/create_resources by the template-driven nature, but it never names those siblings explicitly, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when creating a resource from an existing template rather than from scratch. There is no explicit when-to-use vs create_resource, no prerequisites, and no mention of the required template/listing step beyond the schema's reference to list_templates.

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