create_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action of creating a template and lists the fields involved, but does not mention side effects, permissions, required scopes, or any potential failures. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema and the action itself.

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, consisting of two short paragraphs in four sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds relevant use-case context. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the title but does not detract significantly.

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?

The schema and output schema cover parameter semantics and return values, so the description does not need to repeat those. It provides useful context about template use cases. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus create_command_template, does not mention the project parameter's role, and does not disclose any behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps for a 7-parameter creation tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of optional fields (command, template text, sample data) but does not clarify any additional details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of template_type or the project parameter.

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 it creates a new template in Automation Studio with specified name, type, group, and optional content. It effectively communicates the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool create_command_template, which could be confused with this general template 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 provides context by noting that templates are used for text processing, configuration generation, and data parsing within automation workflows. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as create_command_template or update_template, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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