set_template_slot

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds context that the update is batched and that roles (fixed/flexible) are cooperative advisory metadata (not enforced). This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 sentence of 22 words, front-loading the core action and then adding a clarifying note about roles. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the basic operation but does not specify whether the call overwrites or appends slots, nor does it mention the return value (no output schema). Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, nested array), these omissions leave gaps in completeness.

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%, but the description adds important semantic nuance: it clarifies that the role enum values are 'display labels only, not enforced', which goes beyond the raw schema. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema, so the description adds marginal but valuable extra meaning.

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 verb 'persist' and the resource 'page-scoped template slots' in a specific context ('one batched DESIGN.md update'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like get_page_template or update_design_md.

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?

While the description implies this tool is for persisting template slots, it does not explicitly provide when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this over update_design_md) or when not to use it. No exclusion or prerequisite details are given.

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