Apply Page Template

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

The description discloses the main behavioral trait: it adds multiple components and enumerates exactly which components each template includes. However, it does not mention whether existing page content is overwritten or if the operation is reversible, which is a gap given that annotations provide no safety hints (all flags false).

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence action, a concise list of templates with component details, an args section, and an example. No filler is present; the template list is necessary and clearly formatted.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies all allowed values and their effects and includes an example. The only notable omission is whether applying a template replaces existing page components or appends to them, which could be important for usage.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with an enum, but the description adds significant meaning by detailing the component composition for each template value (e.g., 'ecommerce_home' yields 'Navbar + Hero (centered) + Card Grid (3col) + CTA (centered) + Footer'). This goes well beyond the schema's simple 'Template name' description.

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 tool applies a pre-built page template with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like design_add_component by focusing on bulk template application rather than individual component operations, and lists exact available template names.

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 gives clear context by explaining that the tool automatically adds multiple components to the current page, which implies its use for wholesale page construction. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the template list and component breakdown make the appropriate usage evident.

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