common-set-item-template-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action ('Sets the item template') without explaining what this operation entails—e.g., whether it overwrites existing templates, requires specific permissions, affects item versions or workflows, or has side effects like validation or logging. It fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, overly concise sentence that under-specifies the tool's functionality. While it is not verbose, it lacks necessary details and structure—such as explaining the context or outcomes—making it inefficient. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one provides minimal value, so it scores low for being too brief without substance.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error conditions, nor does it explain what 'setting a template' means in practice. With 4 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed for effective use, but the description fails to provide it.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (id, template, fieldsToCopy, database). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra help from the description.

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 'Sets the item template by the item's ID' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'common-set-item-template-by-id'. It does not specify what an 'item' or 'template' is in this context, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-set-item-template-by-path' or 'common-get-item-template-by-id'. The purpose is vague and lacks specific details about the resource being manipulated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the item must exist or be in a specific state, or compare it to sibling tools like 'common-set-item-template-by-path' (which uses a path instead of ID) or 'common-get-item-template-by-id' (which retrieves rather than sets). There is no explicit or implied context for usage.

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