Create Template Variation

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

Annotations cover key traits: readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation, openWorldHint=true suggests flexible inputs, idempotentHint=false means repeated calls may create duplicates, and destructiveHint=false implies no deletion. The description adds minimal context by mentioning 'overridden properties,' but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or rate limits beyond 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, nested object, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, error cases, or output expectations, which could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions: 'template_id' as Resource ID, 'name' as Variation name, and 'object' as Variation-specific property overrides. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Create a variation') and resource ('of an existing template'), specifying the operation involves 'overridden properties.' It distinguishes from sibling 'dual_create_template' by focusing on variations rather than new templates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_update_template' or 'dual_list_template_variations.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_update_template' for modifying templates or 'dual_list_template_variations' for viewing existing variations. The description implies usage for creating variations but lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing template, or exclusions.

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