LightCMS

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false (safe operation). Description adds context about field definition structure but fails to disclose validation behavior (e.g., conflict handling for duplicate slugs), return value structure, or relationship between fields and html_layout placeholders.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. Second sentence is dense but information-rich. Could benefit from separating field type enumeration from field structure explanation for clarity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and 6 parameters including complex nested structures, the description adequately covers the fields parameter. Missing: explanation of how html_layout references fields via {{.FieldName}}, success indicators, and error conditions.

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 has 100% coverage establishing baseline of 3. Description adds significant value by enumerating valid type values (text, textarea, richtext, date, image, select) not constrained in schema, and clarifies the fields array structure implicitly.

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?

States specific verb 'Create' and resource 'template'. Lists specific field types (text, textarea, richtext, date, image, select) which helps distinguish from sibling creation tools like create_content or create_collection. However, lacks explicit differentiation from update_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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus update_template, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., slug uniqueness requirements), and no workflow context. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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