study_template_apply

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that prior studies are backed up, identities and exposed settings are verified, and active-chart studies are replaced. It does not explain where the backup lives, whether it can be restored, or what verification means in practice, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action comes first and the replacement warning follows, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not say what verification returns, where the backup is stored, or how partial failures are handled. It gives the essential destructive-effect warning, but leaves meaningful gaps for a nested, open-world mutation.

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 only 40% across five parameters, including a nested template object, and the description never names template_id versus template, timeout_ms, or the panes array. 'Saved or supplied' hints at the two template input forms but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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: apply a native saved or supplied study template, with the effect of replacing active-chart studies. This clearly distinguishes it from study_template_save, study_template_get, and study_template_delete.

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 implies when to use it by saying it applies a template and replaces active-chart studies, but it names no alternatives such as layout_open or pane_set_layout and gives no prerequisites like saving or supplying a template first. The replacement effect is useful context, but explicit when/when-not guidance is missing.

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