Create Prompt Template

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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a write. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that: nothing about whether template names must be unique, what happens on a name collision, whether 'description' is optional, permissions required, or what the call returns. For a creation tool with no output schema, that leaves real gaps.

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 sentences, verb-first and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence restates the storage intent at slight length ('preconfigured prompts for common AI tasks') but the concrete examples earn their place.

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 three-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the what and a hint of the why. It stops short of the things an agent would still wonder about: name uniqueness rules, required vs optional fields, and whether the created template is returned or must be fetched.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the intent of 'prompt' as the stored reusable text but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new reusable prompt template') plus the destination store ('SystemDox Standards'). That is enough to distinguish it from the read-side sibling get_prompt_templates, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives positive usage context with concrete examples ('code reviews, documentation generation, or analysis frameworks'), which is better than nothing. However, it offers no when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative (get_prompt_templates for reading), and no prerequisites or scope limits.

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