common-set-item-template-by-path

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. It states the action ('Sets') which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not describe side effects, permissions required, whether the change is reversible, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple statement.

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 (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, and usage context, which are critical for a tool that modifies data. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall guidance is insufficient.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'path' and 'template' or how 'fieldsToCopy' affects the operation). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 path' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb ('Sets') and resource ('item template'), but lacks specificity about what 'item template' means in this context or how it differs from similar operations like 'common-set-item-template-by-id'. The purpose is stated but not clearly distinguished from siblings.

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, context (e.g., when an item path is available vs. an ID), or compare it to sibling tools like 'common-set-item-template-by-id'. Without this, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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