post--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a template version', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and clarity in structure without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the resource hierarchy (domain_name → template_name → versions), expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a creation tool with significant parameters and no structured support, 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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'tag' uniqueness works) or clarify usage. This meets the minimum viable level given the schema's decent coverage.

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 'Create a template version' states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('template version'), but it's vague about what a 'template version' entails in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'post--v3-domain_name-templates' (create template) or 'put--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name' (update template), leaving ambiguity about the specific scope of this creation operation.

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., existing template), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like creating a template or updating a version. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among related operations.

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