set_template_slot

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

The description adds useful behavioral nuance: the write is batched into a single DESIGN.md update, and roles/flexible metadata are advisory, not enforced. The annotations already communicate read/write semantics, idempotency, and destructiveness, and nothing in the description contradicts them.

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 short and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence. The second sentence adds important advisory semantics, but it is dense and references an input not present in the schema, slightly reducing the precision of the extra detail.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint: true, the description explains the batching and the advisory nature of slots, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it does not mention what happens to existing slots for the page, whether this overwrites or merges, or what the response of a successful or failed call looks like.

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 already has 100% coverage of page, slots, and template_id, so a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description references 'allowedTokens' as if it were meaningful input data, yet the slot object permits only slotId, selector, and role with additionalProperties: false. This makes the description actively misleading for parameter construction despite the schema's completeness.

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 states a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('page-scoped template slots') in a batched DESIGN.md update, so an agent can tell roughly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the generic update_design_md sibling, though 'template slots' and 'batched' imply a narrower scope.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_design_md, get_page_template, or read_design_md. The intended context must be inferred entirely from 'page-scoped template slots' and 'batched ... update.'

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