create_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Creates', with no mention of side effects, generated IDs, label inheritance, placeholders, signer field behavior, or reversibility. The schema contains some behavioral notes, but the top-level description itself is minimal.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it is too terse to convey broader behavioral context.

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 (rich document_elements schema, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentation), the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns, how templates are later used by contracts, or any operation-level side effects. The schema covers parameters but not the surrounding workflow context.

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 schema already documents all parameters (title, labels, document_elements) in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('reusable contract template') and gives the purpose ('for contracts to be based on'). It clearly distinguishes the operation from contract creation or template modification, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 phrase 'for contracts to be based on' implies the intended use case: creating a template to be reused by future contracts. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like create_contract or update_template, and no exclusions.

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