add_template_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that pages keep the template's own size and sample text, that check_document will flag unedited placeholders, and what the return payload contains plus the default thumbnail behavior. It does not state whether replaceSlideId is destructive/irreversible or what happens to existing content when a slide is swapped.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds workflow, alternatives, or return-shape value. It is dense and long for a single description, with some overlapping coverage of the two creation alternatives, but little is pure filler.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return values (slideId, name, page position), the thumbnail default, and the editing workflow. The main residual gap is the absence of any warning about replaceSlideId replacing existing content, which matters for safe invocation.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already explains pages, templateId, previews, afterSlideId/replaceSlideId mutual exclusion, and document alternatives. The description adds the useful framing that 'pages' maps to real template structure and that this is the manual counterpart to the content-filling tools, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('把模板的页面加进一份自由画布文档') and immediately analogizes to clicking a page in the editor template panel, covering both multi-page and single-page poster cases. It names the sibling tools that serve adjacent needs, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit alternatives with conditions: use create_document_from_content with per-page templateId for content-filled multi-page docs, and create_poster_from_content's documentId for posters. It also lays out the correct follow-up workflow (inspect_document → apply_actions → check_document) for editing sample text.

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