Crear diagrama desde un template

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

Annotation contradiction: the description implies a mutation/write operation ('Instancia... un documento Fluyo completo, con auto-layout aplicado') creating a new document, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Creating a document is inherently a state-changing write, contradicting the read-only annotation. Even setting aside the contradiction, the description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what a brief 'creates a document with auto-layout' provides.

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 one tight sentence with a parenthetical clarification for labelOverrides. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient. No wasted words, though the parenthetical could arguably be moved entirely to parameter-level documentation.

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 creation tool with 4 params, 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that contradict the described behavior, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain the return value/result of creation, requirements around templateId validity, or how theme interacts with the template. The auto-layout note is helpful but insufficient given the write-operation nature and annotations confusion.

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 only 25% (only labelOverrides has a description in the schema). The tool description does add value by explaining labelOverrides as 'mapa key -> nuevo texto' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema example. However, it doesn't add meaning for theme, pageName, or templateId beyond what the names imply. Baseline is 3 given low coverage, but the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Instancia') plus resource ('templates de list_templates') and explains what it produces (un documento Fluyo completo con auto-layout). It clearly distinguishes itself from create_diagram by focusing on template instantiation. However, it doesn't explicitly note the sibling differentiator beyond referencing list_templates.

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 ('Instancia uno de los templates de list_templates') by referencing how to get templates, which gives some contextual guidance. But it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over create_diagram, nor provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites/alternative guidance. The context is implied rather than stated.

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