Start a draft from a template

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation; the description adds the key behavioral detail that template formatting is preserved exactly, not reconstructed. It clearly communicates that the tool creates a new draft rather than modifying an existing one. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds an important caveat about formatting preservation.

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 simple create-from-template tool, the description plus schema cover the core behavior, required parameters, and the template_id source. The only notable absence is the return value, since there is no output schema, but this is a minor gap for a tool whose primary effect is creating a draft.

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 descriptions cover title, publication, and template_id (75% coverage), and the template_id description points to list_templates. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, and the subtitle parameter remains undocumented in both description and schema. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('Create a new draft pre-filled with a saved template's body') and clarifies an important behavioral nuance ('formatting is preserved exactly, rather than being reconstructed'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling create_draft, relying on the 'pre-filled' phrasing to imply the distinction.

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 implies the use case (creating a draft from an existing template) but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like create_draft or set_draft_body. There are no stated exclusions or preconditions, such as needing a template_id from list_templates, which is left to the schema.

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