save_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that templates are reusable across the team and use ${param} placeholders, and it mentions the optional profile_name. However, it does not explain whether saving with an existing name overwrites, whether validation occurs, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns, which are important for a mutation-style tool.

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 short and front-loaded: the core action and resource appear first, followed by team reuse, placeholder syntax, and the version note. It is efficient, though the version marker 'v2.19' adds minor clutter without strong value for tool selection.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and very low schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. Missing details include overwrite behavior, expected return value, validation rules, and the exact format expected for the 'parameters' array. The description covers the high-level purpose but leaves several operational aspects undisclosed.

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 17%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for ${param} placeholders and mentions profile_name, but it does not clarify the semantics of the 'parameters' array, 'tags', or 'description' fields. The relationship between the 'parameters' property and the ${param} placeholders is only hinted at, not explained.

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 states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('parameterized SQL template'), and 'Reusable across team' plus 'Use ${param} placeholders' clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like execute_template, get_template, list_templates, and delete_template. The resource and core behavior are immediately identifiable.

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 when to use the tool: when a reusable, team-shareable parameterized SQL template is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as execute_template or get_template, leaving the selection guidance mostly implicit.

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