Create Template

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

The description states a mutation operation ('Creates'), which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. Yet it adds little beyond the annotations: no mention of potential side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate names. The description relies heavily on the schema and annotations to convey behavioral details, which are sparse.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence purpose followed by a brief elaboration. There is no superfluous content, and the structure is easy to scan. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains appropriately sized.

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 7-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and typical use cases. However, it omits any mention of dependencies like the 'project' parameter or how to discover available projects (which the schema partly addresses). The description is adequate but lacks contextual details that would fully prepare an agent for successful invocation.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description summarizes the key parameters (name, type, group, command, template text, sample data) but does not add new meaning or clarify ambiguities (e.g., the 'data' field's role). It meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Create a new template in Automation Studio.' It specifies the main attributes (name, type, group, optional content) and the general use cases. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling 'create_command_template', so it falls short of fully differentiating from all siblings.

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 usage context by stating that templates are used for text processing, configuration generation, and data parsing within automation workflows. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_command_template', nor does it mention any prerequisites or situations where this tool is not appropriate.

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