Create Command Template

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is expected. The description adds useful context about creating templates in global or project space, and mentions the key inputs (name, commands, validation rules). It does not discuss failure modes or duplicate handling, but that is not critical given the annotation coverage and the tool's straightforward creation behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful context. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, a full schema with 100% description coverage, an output schema, and annotations that clarify mutability and destructive nature, the description is sufficient. It communicates the core creation action, the primary inputs, and the deployment scope without needing to detail return values or edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by semantically linking 'name, commands, and validation rules' to the creation intent and explicitly mentioning 'global space or within a specific project,' which enriches the meaning of the project parameter beyond its 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Create a new command template in Itential Platform' with 'specified name, commands, and validation rules.' It also distinguishes scope ('global space or within a specific project'), differentiating it from sibling tools like describe_command_template or run_command_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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for creating new templates and mentions the key context of global vs. project scoping. It does not explicitly contrast with update_command_template or run_command_template, but the 'new' qualifier and resource type make the primary use case unambiguous.

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