create_command_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that a new template is created and mentions scope, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, duplicate handling, or behavior of validation rules. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy: 'Create a new command template' appears in both the first and second sentences. It could be more concise without losing meaning. Otherwise, it is efficiently structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description provides only minimal context for a tool with 7 parameters. It does not explain key behavioral aspects like validation rules, pass_rule semantics, ignore_warnings behavior, or how project scope affects visibility. For a creation tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the input schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that templates can be global or project-specific (already captured by the 'project' parameter). 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 creates a new command template, using the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'command template'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_command_template, describe_command_template, and run_command_template by focusing on creation.

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 this tool is used when creating a new command template, and it adds context about global vs. project scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use update_command_template for modifying existing templates) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, making the guidance mostly implicit.

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