apply_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it mentions auto-backup behavior, the meaning of backup=False, atomic validated save, refusal to touch documents open in Word, preservation of unmatched styles, and that content is untouched. This is substantially more transparent than typical tool descriptions.

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 dense and front-loaded: core purpose first, then import-styles framing, then backup and safety behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, and no filler is present.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, this description covers purpose, parameter semantics, backup behavior, content safety, success guarantees, and an important failure condition (refuses documents open in Word). An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'reference document' to reference_path, 'this document' to file_path, 'optionally page geometry' to include_page_geometry, and 'backup=False skips rotation only' to backup. It does not enumerate each parameter by name, but the mapping is sufficiently clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restyle this document to match a reference document,' then lists concrete aspects (styles, theme, fonts, layout, optionally page geometry). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_style and fill_template by framing it as template-based restyling and style import.

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 for when to use it: when restyling a document to match a reference or importing style definitions from another document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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