Apply Template

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the server owns the layout, inherits preset style, grid grows to fit content, and the user provides structure. It lacks detail on side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior) but covers the main behavioral traits.

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 with clear front-loading: first defines purpose, second explains the user/server division, third gives a specific usage hint. No wasted words; 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?

Given 5 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow well. It explains the list discovery mechanism and the flexible structure input. However, it does not describe what the tool returns after applying a template (e.g., success message, ID), which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the 'list' parameter's purpose (discover templates) and the 'structure' parameter's role ('you provide the structure'). It also lists template names while schema already provides enum, but the context of 'adaptive' templates enriches meaning.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('named, adaptive template'), listing concrete template IDs (cjm, swot, etc.). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like convyy_analyze or convyy_draw by focusing on template application.

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 the tool (to apply a template) and mentions calling with {list:true} to see available templates, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare to sibling tools (e.g., when to use convyy_draw instead).

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