create_type_template

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds the reserved-name constraint and the link to instantiate, but omits what happens on a name collision (error vs overwrite) and any permission requirements — relevant for a non-idempotent write.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The parenthetical 'starter/backup recipe' is slightly decorative but clarifies intent cheaply.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, naming, and the downstream instantiate relationship. The main missing piece is collision/overwrite behavior on a non-idempotent save.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by explaining that the template name becomes the content type name that instantiate materialises by default, which is semantics the schema does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Save a content type definition as a reusable template' — and clarifies the recipe/starter purpose. It implies separation from create_content_type by framing the artifact as a template rather than live content, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

It gives a naming rule ('use a name no existing template takes; built-in names are reserved') and hints at the instantiate relationship, but never states when to choose this over create_content_type, update_type_template, or import_type_templates. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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