create_template

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

The description only states the action ('create a draft template') without detailing side effects, return values, or error behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of transparency, and it falls short by not explaining what happens on success or failure.

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 concise and well-structured. It consists of one clear sentence and a list of required parameters, with no superfluous content. It is easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the complexity of the tool (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of the parameters, the structure of nested objects, or the expected response. An agent would have no way to correctly use this tool beyond knowing that it creates a draft template.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the only mention of parameters is a list of the required ones (engineId, engineVersion, label) without any explanation of their meaning or format. The other six parameters (tags, family, defaults, description, slotDefaults, contentDefaults) are completely undocumented. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Create a draft template.' It also lists the required parameters (engineId, engineVersion, label), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_template or list_templates. This unambiguous action and scope make the purpose highly clear.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings. The only hint is the word 'draft,' which implies a specific workflow step, but this is not explicit.

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