template_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a save operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing templates with the same name, requires specific permissions, returns a confirmation or ID, or has side effects (e.g., clearing the canvas). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'current canvas' includes, behavioral aspects like overwrite behavior or return values, and usage context. For a save operation that likely modifies persistent data, this is inadequate.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (name, description, tags, category). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the template is based on the 'current canvas'. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like parameter interactions or examples.

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 the action ('현재 캔버스를 템플릿으로 저장합니다' - 'Save the current canvas as a template') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like template_load and template_delete by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'current canvas' encompasses (e.g., all objects, styles, layers).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have a canvas open), when not to use it (e.g., if canvas is empty), or compare with related tools like template_load or svg_save. Usage is implied from the action but not explicitly stated.

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