create_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new template' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether templates are unique by name, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified in content, it's structurally efficient with every word serving the core purpose statement.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, whether the template becomes immediately available for use, what validation occurs, or what format the response takes. The context suggests this is part of a note/vault system, but the description doesn't connect to that broader context.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing additional about parameter meaning or usage.

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 'Create a new template' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what kind of template is being created or what domain this operates in (though sibling tools suggest note/vault management). While the verb 'create' is clear, the resource 'template' remains vague without context about what templates are used for in this system.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'apply_template' and 'list_templates', but the description doesn't mention relationships with these tools or prerequisites like needing existing templates to apply. There's no indication of when this creation operation is appropriate versus other template-related operations.

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