mindbase_apply_template

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that the tool appends to README.md, seeds context.md sections, and is idempotent. This gives an agent critical side-effect and repeat-safety information, although the exact no-op marker mechanism is not specified.

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 two sentences and each sentence carries substantive value: purpose, file-side effects, and idempotence. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential details: what it acts on, the files it changes, and repeated-run behavior. It could be stronger with explicit return-value or failure-mode information, but those are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 documents projectId but leaves templateId completely undocumented. The description adds meaning by referring to 'template prose' and the 'same template', which implicitly explains templateId's role, but it does not fully compensate for the missing parameter-level schema documentation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Overlay a schema template onto an existing project.' It further clarifies the mechanics by naming the files affected (README.md and context.md), making the tool easy to distinguish from the other mindbase_* operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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: when a schema template needs to be applied to an existing project. The idempotence note also gives re-run guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over alternatives like mindbase_atomic_write_context or explicitly list exclusions.

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