template_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '创建索引模板' (creates index template) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. The example shows a basic usage but lacks behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and example. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with complex nested objects. The Chinese text is efficient, though the example could be slightly more concise.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks crucial behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or system impacts. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 5 parameters with clear explanations of what each represents. It provides specific details like '模板内容（mappings、settings、aliases）' for the template parameter and includes a comprehensive example showing actual usage with concrete values.

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 an index template with specific parameters (name, index_patterns, template, priority, composed_of). It distinguishes from siblings like template_delete and template_get by specifying creation rather than deletion or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other template-related tools beyond the basic verb.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus other template management approaches, or any constraints on usage. The example shows usage but doesn't provide contextual guidance.

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