office_template

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with description. The description adds behavioral context about the two operations (copy and analyze) and notes that destination_path is ignored for analyze. No contradictions, but more detail on side effects (e.g., file creation) could be added.

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 well-structured with a short summary, replaced tools list, examples, args, and returns. It is informative but slightly lengthy; could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 three parameters and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers usage, operations, and return style. It does not specify the exact return dictionary structure, but for a tool of this complexity, it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description enriches parameters with examples and operational context. It clarifies the operation enum usage and explains that destination_path is ignored for analyze, adding value beyond schema.

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 tool copies templates or analyzes template structure, providing specific examples for Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. It explicitly replaces multiple previous tools (excel_copy_template, word_copy_template, etc.), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (for template operations) and lists replaced tools, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives for non-template file operations.

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