Instantiate Template Natively

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the native-clone-first strategy and conditional fallback to markdown, which is non-obvious and not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the key fallback condition. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant repetition of the title.

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 tool has 7 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core execution strategy and fallback behavior, which is the most important detail. It does not mention specifics like workspaceId handling or tag preservation, but the schema already covers those, and the output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all seven parameters well-described (e.g., allowFallback, preserveTags, variables). The description's mention of 'native AFFiNE block cloning' and 'markdown materialization' adds slight context to the allowFallback parameter, but overall it contributes little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Instantiate a template using native AFFiNE block cloning when supported, falling back to markdown materialization only when necessary.' It identifies the specific verb (instantiate), the resource (template), and the tool's unique native-clone-first behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_doc_from_markdown or append_markdown.

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 clear context: use native block cloning when supported, and fallback to markdown only when necessary. It implies this is the preferred tool for template instantiation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when you want a pure markdown doc). Slight gap for full when/when-not guidance.

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