instantiate_type_template

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the default action, the 409 refusal on name collision, the kind-match prerequisite for updateExisting, the explicit note that existing content is not migrated, and the recursive, non-overwriting semantics of withBlocks. The annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description supplies the failure modes and side effects an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the default behavior before the exception branches, and each clause covers a distinct decision the caller must make. It is dense and uses heavy capitalization for emphasis, but the length is justified by the number of distinct branches; nothing reads as 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?

Covers creation, collision handling, naming, and block dependencies for a 5-parameter write tool, which is nearly everything needed. The one gap is that with no output schema present, the description never says what is returned (e.g., the new type's id/kind), so the caller cannot tell how to reference the created type afterwards.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the asName regex ^[A-Z][a-zA-Z0-9]*$ with a worked example, and the clarification that withBlocks recurses and leaves existing types untouched. The 'kind must match' constraint on updateExisting is likewise not in the schema description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Materialise a type template into a real content type.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling template-authoring tools (create_type_template, update_type_template) and from create_content_type, which makes a type from scratch rather than from a template.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions for each mode: default creation, updateExisting: true when the type already exists, asName when a different name is wanted, and withBlocks for built-in templates like FaqPage. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the branching guidance is concrete enough that an agent knows which parameters to set in which situation.

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