create_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes that the tool creates and saves a template for future use, includes design recommendations, and specifies the return value (saved template path and confirmation). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 (purpose, when to call, tips, returns). Every sentence adds value: the first sentence explains the core functionality, the 'When to call' provides context, the 'Tips' offer practical guidance, and the 'Returns' clarifies outcomes. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage context, and practical guidance. The main gap is the lack of explicit error handling or constraints documentation, but given the rich guidance provided and 100% schema coverage, it's mostly complete for agent usage.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the purpose of parameters through design tips (e.g., 'Pick a dominant accent hue and build a monochromatic gradient' relates to colors.accent, 'Avoid Inter, Roboto, Arial' relates to typography fields). It provides practical guidance that goes beyond the schema's technical 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 the tool creates a custom brand template by overriding colors, typography, and layout from a base template. It specifies the resource (brand template) and action (create by overriding), distinguishing it from siblings like list_templates (list operation) and create_carousel (different resource).

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 includes an explicit 'When to call' section stating to use when the user wants carousels to match brand identity and saves the template for future use. It also provides 'Tips' with specific recommendations (e.g., start from 'professional' base, avoid certain fonts), offering clear guidance on when and how to use this tool effectively.

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