common-add-base-template-by-path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Adds') but doesn't explain what 'adding a base template' means operationally, whether it's a mutation or read operation, what permissions are required, or what happens if the template already exists. For a tool that appears to modify content (based on 'add' verb), this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear naming and good schema documentation. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the tool's function.

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 tool that appears to perform content modification (adding base templates) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'base template' means in this context, what the operation entails, what success/failure looks like, or how this interacts with the broader template system. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured metadata, more context is 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'by its path' which aligns with the 'path' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 clearly states the action ('Adds') and target ('a base template to a template item by its path'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'common-add-base-template-by-id' by specifying 'by-path' approach, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb+resource combination is specific enough for understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'common-add-base-template-by-id' or other template-related tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. While the 'by-path' naming implies a path-based approach, no explicit usage context is given.

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